 They're far too many people who do not have access to energy and if we can push companies into the direction of actually anticipating the transition, pricing it and making sure that they move to cleaner and cleaner and cleaner and cleaner energy users, then it helps. We're very honored and very fortunate to have excellent, excellent speech and panelists with us today and on my left we have Governor Kruder, Central Banker Governor from Japan, left it to him, but I'm Christine Lagar, my former boss at IMF, now currently the President of ECB, we have next to her, we have Steve Minucci, Treasury Secretary of the United States, then we have Mr. Schultz, Minister of Finance of Germany, and last obviously not least and also an important person, Christina Giava, I hope I pronounced the name well, and Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund. Please give a big hand to this really, really excellent panel. So I would like to start with you and you just issued your updated global economic outlook. So tell us, what do you see the world economy in 2020 and a little bit will go beyond, but you have only three minutes, I understand it will take 30 to 40 minutes there. It is a message that can easily be summed up in three minutes. We are in a better place in January 2020 than we were in October 2019 during our annual meetings. We are projecting growth this year at 3.3 percent, next year at 3.4 percent. This is clearly an improvement vis-a-vis the record low of last year of 2.9 percent. And what is driving this positive momentum are three things. One, trade tensions are receding. The signing of the U.S.-China trade deal creates more confidence, and we know that uncertainty there was a drag on investments. Two, central banks, and we have a great representation here, has served the world well. Synchronized tax cuts have given a boost to growth, and we actually calculated the size of this boost, half a percentage point for last year, for this year. And what is very important to recognize is that it was done in a manner that improves impact because these are synchronized cuts. 49 central banks cutting 71 times rates. And the third source of optimism comes from trade and industrial production bottoming out. Now this being said, we have to recognize that 3.3 percent is not a fantastic growth. It is sluggish. And therefore, we have to see more action going beyond monetary policy to boost growth. We want to see fiscal policy being more aggressive, and we want to see structural reforms, especially those that boost competition and create more dynamism to be a priority for governments. How is this for three minutes answer? How do you see the emerging market and also low income countries this year? I'm sorry? How do you see the emerging market and low income countries? Well, emerging markets are also moving upwards. Growth projections for this year 4.4 percent, for next year 4.6 percent. We have had a bit of a downgrade in one large emerging market economy, India. We believe this is temporary. We think that India is dealing with a problem that caused that abrupt slowdown, and it was the non-banking financial services. So we expect that momentum to be in emerging markets. And again, we would love to see more. Now, we have to give credit where credit is due. There are bright spots in emerging markets, ASEAN countries, Indonesia, Vietnam are doing really well. We have upgraded our forecast for China as a result of the signing of the trade deal. A number of African economies are doing very well, 7, 8 percent growth. In fact, we have 40 countries in emerging markets that are going to grow 5 percent and more, and a good number of them are in Africa. But we also have some not so good stories. We have a couple of countries that are like Mexico, that are doing a little less well. And we would like to see policies in these countries boosting growth in the next years. Thank you very much for this very positive note. I think that's also very important. Secretary Minowtree, U.S. experienced the longest economic expansion in the past more than 10 years. Now, last year, growth has been slowing down, this year may continue to slow down. So what do you see the U.S. economy? And what will your policy, particularly in the fiscal area, to support and the U.S. economy continue to expand, which is obviously important for the whole world? Well, I think the U.S. economy continues to be the bright spot of growth around the world. I think if you look at the performance, it's clearly related to the President's economic agenda, which has been a combination of tax cuts, regulatory relief, and trade deals. We couldn't be more excited about the recent trade deals signed, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement and China Phase 1 on top of the deal we did with Japan and the deal we did with Korea. I think when you look at some of the headline numbers, inflation is very low in the U.S. Incomes are continuing to rise. You look at unemployment at an all-time low in almost every single group. GDP came in slightly lower than we would have expected, but that's really just a headline number. I think there were certain things. Boeing has had an impact on that being our largest exporter, the GM strike last year. I think the Boeing numbers could impact anywhere from 50 to 70 basis points this year. But I think we look at a very robust economic outcome through 2020. The fiscal policy, do you think you need? I think our fiscal policy has worked. I think the tax cuts, as I've talked about, we believe that the tax cuts over a 10-year period of time will pay for themselves. When you look at our budget deficits relative to GDP, I think they're very manageable, but I think there's no question going forward. We need to look at slowing down the rate of growth of government spending and lower it on a ratio basis. Good. Another positive note is that it's also good. So, Madame Lagasse, you're the president of the ECB. ECB is a central bank, but ECB not only a central bank, it has a more broad mandate. You also do economic structure, reforms, and more macro policy involves. So how do you see European economy this year? Well, first of all, good morning, and it's very nice to be with the group. And I'm delighted that Crystalina is my successor. I have to say it was tempting to go along some of the communications that she had because it was my life. So now I have to focus on a slightly narrower field, which is essentially the European Union and more specifically the 19 members of the euro area, which has the benefit of sharing one single currency, the euro. So when I look at that part of the world, I see some positive signs, and I see some concerning signs as well. In the positive, I look at the employment numbers and the unemployment numbers, just like Stephen. We never had such good employment numbers. We certainly back to the pre-crisis times. When I look at the wage increase, we are roughly on average at about 2.5% wage increase. Which is, for a central banker like Aruiko and myself, we are happy with that because hopefully there will be a transmission channel to prices, which in turn would generate inflation, which would certainly make our life much easier in many respects and give us room to fight the next truck when there is one. What we're not seeing, so I told you I would give sort of good news, bad news. We're not seeing that transmission yet. We're not giving up on that. But to the extent that wages continue to grow, which will fuel consumption, which increase cost for companies, that will somehow be reflected in prices. Unless we're talking about a competitive landscape that is such that prices increases are just out of the equation, which would seem a little bit strange, frankly. So we're waiting for the transmission channel to be reflected into prices. That's the sort of good news, bad news. Also reasonably good news is the fretting of trade. We're seeing a bit more of that. Trade has historically recently been dramatically low and did not fuel growth very much. We are delighted to see trade agreements or truces being negotiated and concluded because we believe that it will remove uncertainty the world over. I think the distribution of the benefits and costs as a result of trade diversion remains to be seen because it's not going to be a win all arrangement. There will be some downside effects and we certainly at the European Central Bank are measuring where the chips will fall and who will lose out of that rediversion under the various agreements. So employment positive, trade slightly positive. What we call the downside risk, which weighs on our economies, I would say probably less pronounced because of what has been resolved between the US and its partners because uncertainty has abated a bit. Brexit is a little bit less uncertain but we still have those possible cliff edge in December of 2020. We don't know exactly what the trade relationship will be and it's a big partner for the euro area so that's certainly a question mark. One more number that I'll give you, Min, is on the composite PMI, which is essentially how much manufacturing output, how much service output, you blend them together. The euro area is in positive territory and what we're seeing is service construction holding strongly and manufacturing still down and below 50 which is the sort of threshold at which things are balanced but the forward numbers, in other words when you ask companies whether they believe that there will be manufacturing activities, that's slightly on the uptick. So that's also a good phenomenon and we are seeing inflation moving a teeny tiny little bit but this is really minor and it would take a lot more for, you know, it would take much higher numbers to actually change the picture fundamentally. With that I'll hand over to you. Thank you, thank you for this very comprehensive and also very open review on the European economy, it's very good. Now we also have a European colleague here, which is the Minister of Finance in Germany. German economy slowed down quite a bit last year and we hope this year will pick up. So how do you see the economy in Germany and what will be your policy to support a strong rebound of the German economy this year, Minister? Yeah, thank you for the question. To give you a view about the German economy, we have a very stable economic development. There is an all-time high in employment. The highest figure of people ever employed in Germany we see today, it's 45 million which is really a lot if you look at the whole figure of our people and there is still a lack of skilled labor. We profited very much from the free movement of labor within the European Union because otherwise we would not have been able to serve all the demands for skilled labor in Germany and we now decided to open our labor market more for skilled labor from countries outside the European Union. This altogether is a strategy which is dealing with the fact that there is still growth, there are strong economic activities and that there is a demand for labor. So it is not a critical situation. What we also see is that the very successful export-oriented Germany economy is naturally suffering if the growth in the world is slower than it should be and this is what we had the last time. So we are the most happiest about the reducing of trade tensions we see at this stage in the world, so the good message that there is a first agreement between the United States and China is something which will have an effect even on development of our export-oriented industries. This is the same with the smooth and smart way how we got the Brexit. It was not a hard Brexit so it will take part the next days in a way which is not a really dramatic situation and this will also help to encourage the economy. What we did aside to this is a very expansionary fiscal policy because as we have a lot of room for maneuver in space we used it. One was to reduce taxes. We did certain at certain moments took decisions like this in this time and it will be all together 25 billion a year from the next year on. So this has really an impact on the demand from the people especially those with lower and medium incomes and this was exactly what we planned to have there. We also increased investment into infrastructure. This is also the highest figure we ever had in the public in the budget for investments and we will be strong enough to continue with this and to follow this line even in the future. At the site we have something which will happen in Germany and in Europe and I think in other places of the world which we will discuss later in our debate here but just to mention it as Germany decided to go out of the use of coal for producing electric energy within a very short period of time this will mean that there will be huge billions of investments mostly from the private sector into the grid and into new ways of producing electric energy with onshore and offshore windcraft and so on. And this question which we will discuss more to the details later here is also something which will have an impact on growth in Germany. This is also the case with the many billions that are now invested from the car industry to produce more electrified cars. This will not just change what we did way of cars we have in Europe and the world which this will also cause a lot of investments in research and development and all these things. Last message Germany succeeded with its aim to have more than 3% of the GDP we invest into research and development. We will increase this further to 3.5 which is one of the highest figures that we will find in the world and this is a thing really something which will also have effects on further development in future. Well that's a very ambitious and positive note. R&D spending from 3% of GDP up to 5% they will lead the whole world absolutely. 3.5 to be honest. 3.5. Oh okay yeah. So that's still is a major number yeah. So then we come to Governor Kruden. Japan had a quite a good year last year growth is around 1%. And this year the growth made a little bit of a slowing down but most importantly and the people obviously how this MP3 sort of a monetary policy support the fiscal expanding policy really work. Do you see that work well in Japan? Actually the Japanese economy has been growing 1 to 1.5% in the last several years. And we expect the Japanese economy will continue to grow by 1 to 1.5% this year as well as next year. Now domestic demand has been fairly strong. Particularly business fixed investment has been quite robust. Supported by substantial labor saving plant and equipment and also R&D investment. These investments are less susceptible to short term business cycle movement. And so the business fixed investment is fairly strong. And we expect this strength of business fixed investment will continue for some time. Personal consumption has been somewhat weak although I would like to emphasize that real employment income has been growing so that the basis of personal consumption is fairly solid. So domestic demand business as well as consumption expenditure they are fairly strong and export certainly last year was very weak. But now we can see that the so-called IT cycle has been bottoming out and IT related goods trade within East Asia is now increasing clearly. That would positively affect the Japanese export in coming years so that the economy, the real economy is doing very well. The labor market is quite tight and the employment rate is only about 2% which is full employment even in the Japanese context. However, inflation rate is still less than 1%. Actually, core inflation rate is 0.6%. Core inflation rate is 0.7%. We are still far away from the 2% inflation target so that Bank of Japan will continue accommodative policy for some time to achieve 2% inflation target. Continue accommodating monetary policy in Japan which is also quite a big note. Now we have a lot of positive notes. I think this is really good and also very much needed and when we start this new year, really about 10 years. But also we have to be careful about the risk side. So what do you see the key risk for year 2020? Before I answer your question, since Christine so kindly welcomed me in my new job, I want to return that by saying I'm so incredibly lucky to inherit from you an institution that is amazing. It is strong-headed and soft-hearted and that is you, Christine. To go to the risks, now putting this softer space around my answer, what we see are these four laws that are tilting our optimism a bit to the downside. Low productivity growth, low economic growth, low interest rates, low inflation. I lived in the 90s in hyperinflation. If anybody was to tell me then that I would be sitting in front of you worried about low inflation, I would have laughed. But yes, we do worry about that because all of this is the foundation for somewhat sluggish global economy. I want to concentrate specifically on the low for longer interest rates and especially when they tilt to negative interest rates. What we see is cheap money, of course, are temptation for higher borrowing of households, of businesses, of governments. We are now at the $188 trillion debt. For some, not a problem, but we look at some of the low-income countries where debt is now at levels higher than before the debt crisis and, of course, we worry. I actually am even more concerned by the fact that with low income for financial institutions, there is a higher appetite for yield that comes with higher risk. And that requires all of us to think about the unintended consequences. And, of course, when we get into negative interest rate territory, it is a big drug on the savers, on the banks. And that we need to recognize in conversations we had some of the present at the annual meetings of the IMF when people talk about low forever, that sends a chill down my spine. So that is a big concern. And I want to bring another concern that I think we all as policymakers ought to think about. And it is the fact that we live in a more risk-prone world. We are in January, not even in the end of January. And we already had a number of events that are sparking as risks in the global economy. And I would argue that this requires policymakers to think of more agile policies, less prescriptive regulation, and more policy that allows anticipation and early action. Because, like it or not, this is the world we are going to be living in. Yeah. Thank you. Low interest rates, low inflation rates, low growth rates is a real concern, particularly if it's a prolonged low interest rate. We're very fortunate to have two central banks here. The negative interest rate is obviously a concern for many people in this room and a lot of debating in the past few days in doubles. So I would like to start with Madame Lagar. And how do these negative interest rates and people now start to even put cash in the safe demands now because the next interest rates? And how can we get out of this liquidity trouble? You know, I'm not going to go into the debate of where exactly is the natural interest rate and what's the forecast for how too low for how too long. The risks are out there. There is no question about it. And that's the reason why at the European Central Bank we decided yesterday to launch a strategy review. Because our strategy, which determines how we define price stability, how we align it with what objective of inflation and how we measure it, how we organize it in our complicated debates. This was decided back in 2003. That's the last time there was a strategy review. If you sort of put yourself back into 2003, we had those heavy-duty cell phones that weighted half a kilo in our pockets. We didn't have social media. The demographic threat on the horizon that is weighing on growth, on people's investment determination, consumption determination, saving versus investment choices, were not as high on the horizon as they are today. We were just barely talking about climate change. Let's face it. And inequality was there, but it was not the headline that we have at the moment. So there have been structural changes, fundamental changes, some of which we can address for sure, some others that will take a long time to remedy and to cure, but for which action is needed now. And we had numbers that were completely different. If you look at 2003, in those days, the G7 countries, to take only that group, were growing at about 3.6%. Now, we are hovering at around 1.3%, 1.4% with a different distribution, with some countries doing much better than the others. But in terms of creation of value, of economic value, we were talking about a different world. If you looked at inflation, which is clearly a target that is on the mind of central bankers to help with price stability, within the G7 inflation was, and we can distinguish between the various inflation as we measure it, but we were at around 1.7% on average. We're now down to 1.3%. So we have to just revisit how we deal with those issues, and that's exactly what the European Central Bank is going to do. It is never a pleasure to have to deal with low interest rates, because low interest rates have to do with the fact that growth is low. Can you tell us a little bit of your secret? What do you intend to review to change? You mentioned inflation. Are you going to change your inflation target? A year from today, yes. That's because the strategy review is going to take, we expect, a year. So a year from now, I'll come back and I'll explain to you. But for the moment, it's an open, transparent process to the extent that we are making progress within our group. In the meantime, monetary policy will continue to be determined as it has been so far on the basis of facts and the various guidances that we've given. Yeah. Colossus here will make sure we invite Madam Lagar come back to his podium next year to tell him, to tell us her review results. I think that would be absolutely amazing. Governor Crude, you just said you're continuing to accommodate the monetary policy. Are you really concerned about an active interest race? How can you and also the world get out of this liquidity trap issue? Bank of Japan introduced minus or negative interest rate in 2016. And we have continued to maintain minus 0.1% policy rate imposed on a small portion of commercial banks deposit at Bank of Japan, while paying positive 0.1% interest rate on large amount of commercial bank deposit at Bank of Japan. So direct impact is quite small. But of course, with large-scale asset purchase, negative interest rate coupled with negative interest rate reduced ill-carved substantially. Now that contributed to revive the economy and also eradicated the deflation. We had deflation from 1998 through 2013, 15-year-long deflation. We have no more deflationary situation. However, certainly low interest rate situation prevailing for so long time, including minus negative interest rate, means that there might be some side effect on the financial system, including the banking system. On the one hand, there could be some financial excess, bubble, financial bubble, and so on and so forth. Now we have been carefully monitoring the financial sector and the financial markets. And so far, we have not seen any kind of financial bubble or financial excess. The other possible side effect is to reduce the banking sector profitability and eventually reduce the banking sector ability to intermediate function, intermediary function, meaning their lending activities might become quite small. Now, actually, the Japanese banking sector continue to extend their loans by 2.5% range. They increase by 2.5% almost every year so that financial intermediary function has not been impaired so far. But certainly, we are very careful and we continue to monitor the financial sector, including the banking sector, whether they are negatively affected by our accommodative and expansionary monetary policy. Maintaining the financial stability, obviously, is key. But also, the banking sector complains about the narrow margin. We probably will come back to that issue as well. Secretary Minouche, several people really mentioned the good news about the US and China signed a face-to-face trade deal. I think it's a really, really good thing. Reduced attention, supported growth for this year. Congratulations. Now you're going to start a trade negotiation with UK, Europe, and as a several panelists here mentioned. So how do you see this negotiation? Well, we've already started the conversations with the EU. We look forward to making progress with them. And I think on the UK, the president has been clear, going back to the election, that the UK is our number one ally and will be at the top of the list of trade agreements. So we look forward to getting that done this year. We're encouraged. We also know they got to do a deal with the EU. But we look forward to hopefully getting both those deals done this year. Secretary Minouche mentioned the UK. UK is going to leave the EU. Minister Schultz, how do you see the UK as a way to impact your economy and in broad sense, your opinion economy? I think that we'll not have a big impact that the UK will have left the European Union in some days. And especially not because we avoided a hard Brexit. So this was the key question, which was also having effects on the confidence of people in the business sector, whether they should invest or not, that they were not sure about that question. So there is a task left, which is to now get the agreement about the further relationship between the European Union and the UK. But if this is also managed, I'm absolutely confident that, especially on the continent, to say it from the British view, there will be no negative effect of this development. It will be more difficult for the UK, obviously, because the business model must be reorganized. There will be a lower importance, though it will be still be a very big place of financial activities in London. But it will be different as it is today. And this all will have some consequences we will see in the next years. I think for Europe, the more important question is that we continue with what is already agreed between then President Junker and President Trump about discussions about trade. I'm relatively confident that we will be successful with this, because anyone knows that a free trade is something that is causing wealth. And for Europe, there are some tasks to be solved, which are now on the table. One of them is forming banking union and capital market union, because I think we have lower growth as we would have if we would have done this task or if we solved this task already. There will be even better interest rates if the money could be used at many places in Europe. And it is not that difficult as it is today. So we need this development and also for having more equity in financing companies as we have not in Europe today. There is a complete difference between the United States and Europe. It's 80% equity financing in the United States. It's 20% in Europe. And if we could narrow this a bit, this would have a good effect on growth in Europe. But the Brexit, I think, will not have a negative effect. UK is leaving. The senior UK official said UK will have its own rule, not necessarily adhering the current EU rules. Do you think UK and the EU will be able to settle all the trade deals within the next 12 months? So there is now the debate between the European Union and the UK how we will manage it. Yes, if you leave the European Union, you leave it and you are outside. And this means that you cannot be in and have all the advantages coming from being a member of the European Union and be out and having the advantages of being not in. So it is something which will have to be balanced. And the European Commission already said the necessary words to that question. I think we will find solutions. But sure, there could be not a special competitive advantage from being outside. In this year, really the thing for Davos is focus on the sustainability of the growth and more emphasized on the climate change also. Because today we're really looking for the next four 10 years. I think it's absolutely important to have the government think about what is their policy from physical policy to monetary policy to structure policy to support sustainable growth in the next 10 years. So what will be your recommendation on what I'm going to give? Let me start by saying that it is a great conversation to have. Because it does provide an opportunity to think of policies that can be good for the environment and good for the economy, good for people. Very often we tend to lean on the negative and talk about the risks. And I will talk about the risks. But I want to start from the point that transformative investments for low carbon climate resilient development can be a major stimulus for growth. They may very well be that silver bullet we need to deal with the four laws I talked before. But yes, from the position of the IMF, we do look at the risks. And we look at these risks strictly within our mandate. Financial stability risks. When we are in a situation when European Union comes with a clear direction by 2030 for becoming carbon neutral, that inevitably would mean that investments in certain sectors of the economy that were profitable and are profitable maybe less so, as well as that risks stemming from climate change, from hurricanes, from floods, from droughts, they would be weighted as part of the transformative policies. And I expect that we would see that kind of pickup of sustainability investments. We heard everybody here talks about Larry Fink's letter, I don't know where the Larry is in the audience. But we heard about that new impetus in the financial world. So what does that mean from a risk management perspective? Financial sustainability risk management perspective. It means that we do have to be able to record these risks in a standardized fashion. In other words, companies and financial institutions have to be able to report in a harmonized manner. And it also means that those who are watching cover the financial health of our world, like the Financial Stability Board, like the International Monetary Fund, we ought to be able to stress test financial institutions for these new types of risks. Transitional in terms of sectors of the economy coming down or coming up, as well as those related to climate events that are unfortunately more frequent and more destructive. The other aspect is how to stimulate, and I want to go to the positive, because risk management, as important as it is, I can tell you it doesn't really excite people that much. What excites people is, can we inject more growth? Can we create new jobs in the new green economy? And the answer is, of course, if we have the right policies and incentives, we can then create a momentum for the tremendous liquidity we have in the world that is sitting idle. And then have a new, hopefully, upswing, some are talking about a way to stimulate inflation, grow the sun, by having that investment momentum that makes the liquidity moving a little bit faster. And I think we have to embrace that positive image. I am very concerned when I sit in meetings and everything is doom and gloom, that we are taking the wrong approach to that issue of sustainability. When I was director for environment, we had a great anecdote that goes like this. God calls Moses and says, Moses, I have two pieces of news for you. One is good, the other one is not so good. Which one do you want first? Moses says, can I please have the good news first? God says, good news is you would raise your hand, split the sea, and take your people to safety. Moses says, they cannot be bad news after this. God says, not so fast. The bad news is that you will have to make an environmental impact assessment first. My messy cheese. As long as we take this sustainability angle as bad news, I don't think we would go very far. So we have to recognize the risk about the climate changing, the damage of those things and take proactive policies. Thank you very much. So Secretary Minucci, the business committee really reacted strongly, positively, actively to the sustainability issues, and particularly toward the climate change. So many, many US companies now say really looking for the government policy to support them to move forward. So what is your policy in climate change, in support of SDG, and a few other things? Well, let me just comment. And I think this is an important subject. But first of all, I think the words that we use to describe these issues are important. So I think the word should be environmental issues and not climate change, since climate change is one of many issues. Now, there's no question in terms of the US and our policy, the President very much believes in clean air and clean water. And if you look at the US, we've become much more efficient in terms of carbon through technology and use of energy. I think that as you look at China and India, I think these are areas where there needs to be significant improvement in terms of environmental issues. I think there's an abundance of clean gas in the world. There'll be a lot of progress on this. So I think this is one of many important issues. I also think notwithstanding my German friends having a 30-year plan, I think technology is going to change a lot in 30 years. And some of the issues that we think exist today, technology will change. So I think it's hard to predict. So I think there's no question this is an issue. But I would just say, and I understand, Klaus, it's an economic issue because there's no question environmental issues impact the economy. I think it's one of many important issues. We happen to be in a situation today where there's a potential health issue and the spread of this. Health issues over the next 20 or 30 years are very, very important issues for the economy. I think we've also talked about national security issues. The President's very clear Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. These are also issues that impact the region and the economy. So not to minimize the environmental issue, I think this is one of many issues that's an important economic issue. And I hope we all work together. We support the Trillion Tree Project. I hope we can all work together in improving the environment over the next 20, 30 years. And the reason why we left the Paris Agreement was not because we don't support the environment, we thought it wasn't a fair and balanced agreement. The U.S. is making a lot of progress, and we encourage others. And I would just say one last comment on this. There's way too many people in the developing world that do not have access to electricity. So as much as we want to talk about the environmental issues, there are still a large number of people and we need to work very hard to create an environment for these people where they have better lives. Thank you, Secretary. We need a broader definition of the sustainability. I think this is also a very important concept. Madame Lagarde? Yeah, so I come to you. I understand the climate change is really in your heart. I guess, let me use that word as part of your strategic review. How ECB can do things to support and to help this climate change all those related issues? I will tell you that, but I was thinking of what Kristalina said, what excites us. And I was reminded of what marketing and advertising people used to say that makes us move. And they list three items. One is sex. Second is fear. And the third is greed. So I won't deal with the first because that's nothing to do with environmental sustainability, okay? However, but no, I won't go there. Population growth, though. But if you look at fear, I think the fear factor is there. And if we were to forget about it, all we need to do is look at the complete disaster that are taking place around the world. And I'm delighted to hear the issue of environmental sustainability because you're right, Steven, biodiversity is a key component of what we need to protect in order to have an environment that is sustainable and a planet that we pass on to children and grandchildren in a better place, hopefully. So fear, I think we have that on the table. Greed, with all due respect to the corporate sector, and I was a member of the corporate sector for 20 years of my life, it's fantastic to see the likes of BlackRock, Bank of America, Microsoft, and many others around the world that are not taking that super seriously because it matters to them personally, but also because it's going to make sense for their bottom line at the end of the day because they take a longer-term view than the next quarter. So if you line these two, you've got a few other pieces missing because it's a challenge that will require huge cooperation, you know? Corporate sector, policymakers, regulators, and central bankers, yes. So that's where I want to respond to your point. If you look at the economic literature at the moment, out of 77,000 articles published, 60 deal with environmental sustainability. So that's an area where clearly the top-notch economists of this world who are ever located, including at the ECB, can actually do some work, can include those risks and how we try to measure them as best as we can into their economic analysis, forecast models, and stress testing tools that are used on a regular basis with the banking sector. That's one component. Economic analysis, the stress testing that is taking place, and that needs to be seriously revamped because we don't look at 30 years into the making risks. We look at much shorter term today. How will the banking sector behave and operate if there is a shock to the economy in the next three years? That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about something that is further away. And we also need to look for those of us who had to do quantitative easing and for those of us who have reserves and for those of us who have big pension system to run, how do we value those risks that are there in those portfolios? Is it the right method? Are we taking climate change, environmental sustainability into account? Do we need to discount some of those instruments that we have in our portfolios? How do we do that? And clearly, this is all good talk, but we're going to have to drill down into how we measure. The accountants are going to have to be on board. How do we rate? The rating agencies are going to have to be on board. How do we assess internally all our teams are going to have to be on board? And at the end of the day, it's going to be more than disclose and stress test, but really, how do you actually account so that risks is anticipated, measured, hopefully mitigated, and we are in a better shape because then those externalities have been put into our anticipation and come into our decision-making processes. One final point, when it comes to inflation, whether we don't deal with it or whether we deal with it, there will be some inflation consequences. I would much better have the inflation consequences that Kristallina was referring to, because more investment is needed, because more research is needed, because productivity improves. That would be, for me, the healthy inflation that we are happy to welcome and draw consequences from because it's going to be much better for us all and particularly for those that are underprivileged and most exposed. I think it's wonderful to hear the central bankers they talk about those things and actually the central bank can do a lot of the things. I think it's really fantastic. Secretary Minuzi, I saw you move your mug. Are you going to say something about that? Well, whatever I was going to say, and I'm not going to go with any comments on the joke or your three issues. I'll skip on that, but I think disclosure is a good idea, okay? Whether it should be voluntary or it should be enforced, I personally think it should be voluntary, but Christine, I think you can have a lot of people look at this and model it. I just don't want to kid ourselves. I think there's no way we can possibly model what these risks are over the next 30 years with a level of certainty, given what I think is changes in technology and everything along the way. What we can say is there are things that we can do that can move towards cleaner energy and create better environmental issues over the next 10 years. That's something we have a lot of visibility. Again, I don't think that we can create this level of certainty over the next 30 years what the risks are. And I think everybody says, look, there is a transformation, how long the transformation takes. And again, I don't mean to minimize this issue. There's lots of other issues we could talk about, kind of what's the risk to kind of if oil prices go up to $120 because of regional issues on the world economy. So I mean, there are economic issues that the world is dependent upon having reasonable priced energy for the next 10 or 20 years where we're not gonna create growth and we're not gonna create jobs. So again, I just think all these things need to be balanced and this is one of many issues we should look at modeling. Other exchange. Steven, can I just respond very super quickly? Okay. You, you, you really increase the temperature for the rule. You completely right to say that we have to price the cost of transition. And to your point where we, if we do that and if we have pressure, either voluntary or not so voluntarily, that will also deal with the point that you were making, which is that they're far too many people who do not have access to energy. And if we can push companies into the direction of actually anticipating the transition, pricing it and making sure that they move to cleaner and cleaner and cleaner and cleaner energy users, then it helps. I'm sorry, but I need one rebuttal to be 30 seconds. Okay. I don't think. 25 seconds. I don't think we know how to price these things. So I think we're overestimating the cost. And if you want to put a tax on people, you know, go ahead and put a carbon tax. That is a tax on hardworking people. And I personally think the costs are going to be much lower 10 years from now because of technology than we think they are today. I think that we need an Asia voice to. This has been fun. Join this really, really interesting conversation. Thank you. Dr. Kruda. Yeah, thank you. Actually, climate risk is quite real for Japan. I said that the Japanese economy has been growing one to 1.4% and we'll continue to do so. But really, in the fourth quarter of last year, probably the Japanese economy had negative growth, partly because of the aftermath of consumption, tax increase, but largely because of two big typhoons affected the economy and production seriously. Richard Roster. Yeah. So natural disaster, I mean, is really intensifying in Japan. So last year, the government introduced large-scale economic policy package in which substantial part was to strengthen the infrastructure and less susceptible to natural disasters and so forth. So I think the Japanese economy is energy efficient. One of the most energy efficient economy, but I still think that the Japanese economy must do more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and contribute to the mitigation of climate change. Just last one point. The Bank of Japan have recently joined the NGFS, the network for greening the financial system. And at this stage, the network is to focus on integrating climate-related risks in financial stability monitoring and banking supervision. And I think that is as Chris Alina, as Christine mentioned, this is quite important. Central bankers are acting this fantastic. Minister Schultz, I know you want to join. Yeah, I just would like to react to some of the things that have been set on this panel and on the debate we already have. I think there is something like climate change and it really hurts us. And if we will not be able to manage it and this will have a lot of negative effects on our life, on the life of the world and even on the economy. Just imagine in 2050 we will be approximately 10 billion people on the world. And imagine that we are successful in having better growth in the least developed and in the developing countries which possibly cause the effect that they have all around half of the income per person we have in our countries in the West. And then imagine this will be done with all the fossil energies and the techniques we have today. This will be a world that could not really be livable for anyone on the globe. So it is key that we do something now and you must not be too intelligent to imagine that in five, 10, 15, or 20 years we will have global debates of the right to emit and CO2 emissions of any country and possibly per person. And if we do not prepare for that time we will have severe economic damages in our country. So waiting for the others is a possibly very dangerous strategy. And this is why I think it's necessary and right that Europe and that Germany try to be CO2 neutral in 2050 which is a very, very strong way we have ahead of us. And we have to do a lot of things. Germany now decided to start 2021 with CO2 pricing. Prices that will continuously grow so that the people have chances to decide and the companies have chances to decide what they will do to avoid the pricing and having better techniques with lower emissions. And we decided that we will go out of the use of coal energy and this will be done in a very short time. Latest 2038, it is today 40 gigawatt of energy supply which is produced this way. We invest a lot of money to help the regions which are now working with these industries so that they have good jobs in future as well and that they understand that there is solidarity. But now after we did this, big investments will be necessary, private mostly and public investments which will increase the grid, which will make it feasible that we have 65% of renewable energies in 2030 and even much more in the next years that we will go into the use of hydrogen and that we will use this instead of fossil energies. There must be a big economic and technological approach within years and this is the years which start in this decade and it will be a big, big change and this is the same which is happening with the car industry. So I think those who will start with doing the necessary things will not just solve their problem but possibly will be the ones that develop the technologies which make it feasible for all of us to avoid too much emissions in the world because there are cheap efficient technologies already developed and on the market. Great, thank you. It's a very strong nose. Tom is out. But since this is the last session I want to take the liberty to take extra three minutes close with your permission to get one or two questions from all the end. Any questions? Yeah, the gentleman in the front. Do we have a mic? We don't. Oh. Can you speak loudly? Just stand. Okay. Yeah, as it pertains to the session. Yeah, sir, have you got the... I think generally, yes. So I mean, what I said is, you know, I think it did... I think the issue is... The question is disclosure of the common ground here for capital markets, regulators and consumers on the issue of the environment. I'd say disclosure broadly is a good thing in capital markets. So that allows investors to make decisions that allows capital markets to function. Again, we go through processes of, you know, in the U.S., all material risks do need to be disclosed. So yes, generally, I think disclosure is a good thing as I commented. And again, we have laws that deal with that. Yeah, we have such a fascinating conversation today. And the positive notes for the economic forward for this year, risk remains, but all the commitment for the sustainable growth in the next 10 years, I think this is a really fantastic closing session. So please join me, big hands for our excellent, excellent panelists. Thank you.