 Ik ben op de panel. Zoals we gereden, in een andere meeting, God created the earth en de Duits created the Netherlands. Because 7 million people will be below sea level if we haven't done so. Schiphol Airport, which is the second biggest airport in Europe, is four meters below sea level. So it is really a day to day big issue for us. My vision on this is that where the Netherlands is already leading now in water management, in food security, we are the second biggest exporter of agricultural products in the world, I want also to be leading in climate change, in tackling the environmental impact. And by doing that, not only making sure that we have to see or to emissions coming down and moving to the 1.5 degrees Paris targets, but at the same time earning a lot of money, creating new businesses, new innovations, et cetera. For that we need to bring the targets up. I believe that Europe's targets are too low. We are now working on a 49 percent target plan for 2030. Europe is still at its moment at 40 percent. Next year we have to decide what the target will be. Together with France, with Emmanuel Macron, we are famous pushing for a target of 55 percent for the EU. Of course at the same time we have to make sure that the targets worldwide stay in place. And particularly with the US challenge keep China fully on board. I think that's working at the moment, but also the other parts of the world. And having said that, of course nationally we need support for this. What we have done is we have brought together a large group of people working on all the aspects of climate change and the environmental impact. That has led to a draft agreement, which is now being thought through by all the relevant agencies. We will get it back as politicians. In April then we have to take decisions. I believe we have to look at three things. One, can people afford it so that it is still possible. And this is something I would like to learn from you, what you are doing in this area. That people can make this transition in their personal lives without having to skip holidays or moving homes or whatever. But they are able to do this whilst maintaining a lifestyle. Secondly, that we all understand what we personally can do to contribute in a very practical sense to this. When I have to buy a new car, should I still buy a petrol-driven car or a powered car or should I buy an electrical car? And what are the trade-offs and how does this all play out, et cetera? And finally we have to make sure that it is fair how we distribute all of this between the companies and the people. That companies of course are crucial for your economic competitiveness. But at the same time we have to make sure that they are not unfairly handled in the sense that they are not doing enough whilst we are asking a lot of the burden being shared by the people themselves. En of course, a final one is the level playing field. When we in the Netherlands will do more than Germany or Belgium, it will be silly. If we close a coal-powered plant whilst a brown coal plant is being opened in Germany, why are we doing that? So we have to be very careful in calibrating this, choreographing this in such a way that we make sure that the country stays competitive, becomes even more competitive and that we are not basically exporting the problem to another country which would then basically see its emissions going up and then you can't build a wall in the air that would still then come to the Netherlands. So all these issues I believe we have to take into account. But the most interesting thing for this panel I think will be this issue of how do we maintain the support with the general population, how to do that. Right, and I'm interested in following up on that relationship you mentioned as well in terms of the national borders because in Europe it's a very singular situation because there's so many countries so close together. It's 8, soon 27. Right, it is a changing number. Rachel, I want to talk to you because according to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, the world has 12 years left to prevent catastrophic global warming. How can the world's major economies use their combined market power to speed up climate-friendly development? Well, thank you, it's a real pleasure to be here. So this is the report to which you refer. It was an opportunity to hit the reset button and recalibrate again the ambition dat has to be part of the dialogue between political leaders and people. I'll come back to that at the moment. What it did, so there has been tremendous progress. I mean, if you sit in the energy discussions here in Aspen and you ask anybody if 10 years ago we predicted we would be where we are today in the price of renewable energy, the price of storage for renewable energy. If somebody said that they knew, I doubt it, right? So there is tremendous progress, but we have to now set the reset button because the climate is outpacing us, the climate change is racing and we're walking. So now what we do is we have an extraordinary opportunity to hit the reset button and we know a lot of what we need to do. And this is the public-private dance that we have to dance a little bit more quickly than we have. It's not a polka anymore, it's a tarantella. The public sector, what government has to do is set very clearly the point on the horizon to which it wants to go. And the EU's done that and they need to keep ratcheting it up and ratcheting it up. Once you have that kind of policy certainty, what we can see is that the private sector will shift its R&D on its own. R&D will shift into the technologies, into the solutions that will work for a decarbonised economy. Dat happens. The public sector can also do a lot to induce that through procurement and things like that. So it's this dance between the public and the private sector. But the public becomes very important because we are now on an emergency footing. We have run out of time. And across Europe we have rebellions, right? Today we have 35,000 school students on the streets of Brussels saying we want action now. And that's different because that's not okay. We need an incremental improvement over... This is like what do we do to have transformative change? And so there is an energy transition, the deep decarbonisation of our energy systems, renewable energy, is starting to happen as much better signalling that could be sent. And the fossil fuel subsidies. There are still fossil fuel subsidies from G7 countries. That's ridiculous. We agreed in Germany that that would stop. The G20 has to start picking up the pace on that as well. So why we are subsidising what we know is killing our children, poisoning them and also affecting their ability to learn is kind of beyond me. And it's certainly beyond the students on the streets of Brussels today. So the energy transition speeded up. What we now know is that the things that use energy very inefficiently or very intensively like steel, like cement, like chemicals, like heavy transport, shipping and aviation and trucks and buses, we now know that we can actually get in 2050 to a place where they can be zero carbon as well technologically. So can we now set the standards and have the policy pool for that as well and allow the private sector to innovate into that space. So it's every piece of the economy. What doesn't get talked about enough? We have to eat differently. Our diets have to be different. But this isn't about sacrifice. There is an opportunity to do this inclusively. It can be done affordably. We're still throwing bad money after bad money. Perhaps one day it was good money 50, 100 years ago. But so we are not being consistent and coherent across all of our economies. And when we start to do that, I think we start to see the pace of change start. So what's new today? The UN report took all plausible deniability away from any business leader, any government leader, any student leader, any mayor. We now know the size of the challenge and the timeframe we have to work within. And so the question is, where do we create the spaces for the courage for political leaders to set the policy landscape? And then what is the pressure on business leaders to go as fast as they can into those spaces? Those spaces can deliver electricity, food, water, out affordable, reliable, affordable and reliable systems. But it's going to take a new way of thinking about it. Good news, technology exists. Digitalization, decentralization, whether it's water or energy, we know that this is what's already happening. And I think there's a bright new green, clean world out there which young people want and it's a responsibility to build it for them. Well, thank you, there's a lot to drill down there. We're going to get back to some of those things. I do want to switch over to Majun. And first of all, maybe you can talk a little bit about your background because I was looking at your resume and it's a really very impressive thing to look at. You've done a lot of really interesting and cool things. And then also China, boy, you could really argue they're the poster child for some bad things with regard to pollution and carbon. And I'd love it if you could just give us an overview of where things stand there. Sure. Thank you, Andy. I probably start with a couple of things I'm doing and going back a little bit on what China been doing on green finance en what we've been pushing in the international space through G20 and the central bank network of green finance. Back five years ago when I joined the central bank of China as chief economist, I kicked off this green finance task force in which we proposed the 14 actions for the central government to build what we call a green financial system. The idea was very simple. It wasn't so much of sort of a risk management so it's really about mobilisation because China needs to invest in many green areas for example clean energy, green building, clean transportation, environmental protection and so on and so forth in any amount of 4 trillion RMB per year. That was a conservative estimate in fact but it was done back a few years ago. And I told the government that only 10% of that amount can be covered by government budget. 90% of all the good things needs to be done with private sector money. So you need to do something. Otherwise all the targets that you're setting for reducing air pollution, for reducing water pollution, land contamination, carbon reduction are not going to be possible. So that was the body by the government and second year it became a mandate from the central government for the PBOC to lead the drafting of a green finance guideline. This is something I spent like a year working on coordinating seven ministries en we came up with 35 actions. Consolidating all the resources, the fiscal, the central bank, the monetary, the banking authority, the stock exchange and the Ministry of Environment and NDRC which is the planning agency. So in order to enforce all these actions which intend to promote a green finance market or greening the finance of the assistant, we made sure that every single action is assigned to an individual ministry, individual bureau and individual person and it has to be delivered by certain date. This is what we call a division of labor document that came out after the guideline. Now that's something I was very proud of doing and I see the implementation of this document as much better than many other documents. So what we did in the last few years, just very briefly, are the following. Number one, we created taxonomies for green finance. Namelijk we define green loans and green bonds. I think these are the first national level definitions in the world. Only with that definition, you'll be able to really channel the right amount of dollars to the right sectors and right projects and you can prevent green washing and you can create products and so on. Second thing we did was to introduce a disclosure requirement and we said it's gonna be a three year sort of action plan and the last step is by 2020 all listed companies will have to disclose environmental information, no excuse. It's not a voluntary system, it's not a semi voluntary system, it's a compulsory system. And I think by then China achieved this goal. We will become the first large economy that has introduced compulsory requirement for environmental and climate information disclosure which will include I think the CO2 emission, the SO2 emission, the NOx emission, the COD, energy consumption and water consumption. Now this is very powerful because only with such information will the capital market be able to identify which project green, which project not green will be able to channel the right amount, the money to the right sector. The third thing we did was introducing incentives. We know that some of the green projects, low carbon projects are not profitable enough. Of course they are profitable once which a lot of banks are doing and these are the externalities and we need to overcome externalities with some incentive. So Central Bank came in with a PBOC relanding facility for green which means that we at Central Bank lend money cheaply to the commercial bank and we ask you to lend cheaply to the project roughly by 1% points lower than the market. And also we ask the local governments to subsidize or guarantee the green projects. In Jiangsu province, which is one of the large province in China, they subsidize 30% of interest payments of green bonds. And it does change behavior. I was there just a few weeks so I saw the companies which didn't want to issue green bonds for green projects, they changed the behavior, they did it. And the last thing is really, we need to create a lot of products to be tailor-made for different type of green projects. For example, some short term projects can be financed by short term bank loans but many long term projects will have to be financed with long term money. That's why we created the green bond market. China was a late comer, it's 10 years after the first European green bond issue. We did it in 2016, but in that year China became the largest green bond market in the world. In the last three years, since we launched the green bond market, we issued more than 100 billion US dollar on green bonds. And it's still growing, I think very strongly. The many other products which you are creating, green insurance, the carbon collateral for financing and so on so forth, which I see clearly improve the flow of money to the green sector and also inspire a lot of other countries to kick off the green financial policies. Well, thank you very much for that. And it's actually a relief, at least to me personally, to hear all this going on in China because for those of us who go to Beijing and see the air and then read the stories about the CO2 emissions, sometimes we don't see perhaps the projects that we'd like to see there, the headway. And so I'm very happy to hear that you're fighting the fight. I'm going to ask you some more questions about that. I'd like to go over to Fikido and ask you about your company, Royal DSM. And you guys were a dirty company, right? Thank you very much. Yes, and you're welcome. But they've changed. They've gotten a lot of new ways and new thinking. I'm sorry, I don't mean to make fun of you. I'll poke fun of you, but you're a good sport. You can handle it. You can handle it, good. You know him a little bit. En tell us. Ja, you better be careful. So tell us about what's going on with your company and the changes that have been brought about. Ja, now to make that point right. Indeed, we have a very polluting background. DSM, Dutch state mines. We are not, we are with the prime minister next to me. We are still Dutch, but not really. We are not owned by the state. That's clear anymore, and we have no mines. But we get the three letters. And we change from a mining company to a chemical company and now to a science-based company. World's largest food, nutrition and greening manufacturer and sustainable materials for energy, et cetera. I think climate change is the, maybe biggest challenge we have in mankind. We adapted ourselves by adapting this environment towards us. And we overdid that a little bit. We will get to have to deal with a huge amount of refuges. We cannot deal with the war refuges today. We will get financial instability if we don't deal with it. And my biggest fear is, if we don't do it fast enough, that the permafrost in Siberia in Greenland will be melting. I don't know whether you're aware. But as we speak every single day, we get holes twice of this room of meeting burst in Greenland en Siberia. As we speak, the last two years for the first time noticed, due to the permafrost, which is a little bit weak, and the meeting get evaporated. Very difficult. As a chemical company, a runaway reaction, then there is no management needed anymore. Then science and nature takes it over. So what do we need to do? Like Rachel, which I had the pleasure of cooperating for many, many years in private public partnerships, it needs to be done by both companies and countries. Countries have the privilege to make regulations, laws, et cetera. Countries have also the privilege to give subsidies. 400 to 500 billion fossil subsidies every single year. Countries could stop with that. That would be a great step forward. So there are things countries can do. There are things companies can do. Companies can step forward and do more. And of course companies will struggle with exactly the same point the prime minister made. If I step forward and they do more than the competition, do I outcompete myself? Do I make it more difficult for myself? Or should I wait for regulations then we all get the level playing field? We and many other companies do not wait for regulations en step forward voluntarily and do more than need it. And that is jeopardizing our competitiveness to a certain degree. Are we stupid? Why are we doing that? No, because that is leadership, I believe, to step forward and to do more than maybe needed. Also, to be honest, to a self-interest. Also to a self-interest. Because I want to future-proof our organization. I want to future-proof our company. I think if we don't do it, the millennials will not work for our company anymore. On the buy-out products, we lose our license to operate from society. We are not prepared on a carbon price and we will lose out as a company. So we do that also as self-interest. I'm leading a group and I just came out of the meeting we have regularly with them of 18 companies called the CEO Climate Leader Group. What do we agree? We agree to voluntarily increase our own reduction targets, science-based targets. We agree to put an internal price of carbon, stimulating governance, to put a stronger price of carbon. Side step on that one. I'm also leading another commission, dealing with the competitiveness impact of carbon price. Hopefully in September we come with a conclusion. My feeling a little bit, a carbon price of 30 to 50 is impactful enough for companies to react, but not big enough for companies to move the assets to another country. Taxation, labor arbitrage, IP, there are many other considerations to make. So this might be interesting and I personally think this is important. Next to targets, carbon pricing, more innovations and more financial disclosure of what we are doing. And that is what we are committing ourselves. And I see that also the financial sector to my June's point is also increasingly interested in this. We need to revolve our credit facilities with the banks en we said to the banks we need to pay a fee for that. And what if we pay a lower fee if we reduce our emissions more? So what has those two things to do? Well, with future proofing our company towards the future. Would you banks not be interested to give a lower fee we need to pay when we green our company faster? And we got that done. So the financial sector to my June's point is also changing. And this future proofing I think it's portfolio of things they hold. Zijn as Lyovhenko BlackRock made his statement today. Last point and I stop. My big concern is the point the prime minister also made. At the end of today, how do we divide the bill? And I'm concerned that the feeling with a lot of people in our society is, okay, we have maybe economic downturn, maybe this, maybe that and now we need to pay also the climate bill. Mama mia, where does it stop? En er is a part of population which did not benefit it from globalization. And I think that point need to be addressed. You cannot transition a company. You cannot transition a country. You cannot transition society if you don't take the people with you. And there I think we have still a big challenge. Thank you, Falka. Mama mia indeed. I like that, that's great. Christian, you've been very patient letting all of your guests. I'm a Swiss. Go first. Exactly, yes. Exactly, it doesn't bother him. It really doesn't. I want to ask you from the Swiss Re perspective though, it would seem to me that your role here would be one of risk and understanding the risks that climate change have. I'm hoping that's some perspective that you can bring to this discussion. And so from financial services and insurance perspective, how can you participate? And I love that idea of telling the bank, charge us less. Are there ways that you can participate like that to further this agenda? It's always tough to negotiate with Dutch people. I don't want to give insurance cover to Fike. He's going to ask for a reduction. Yes, you can see that. He's going to guilt you with it, right? That's excellent. Maybe two perspectives. I think one perspective is we're at the receiving end of climate change. That's the insure of insurers. We insure the biggest catastrophes in the world. And so we have observed that over time. And the second perspective is maybe us as a company, just as a normal company, what we do about that. So when it comes to climate change, we were relatively early, I think, in 1993 we published that we think this is a real risk, as a risk knowledge company. We put that out there. But as one of the first companies, but nobody listened. Nobody cared. It was a bit of science fiction. And for 10 years, nothing happened. And then we thought we should start to talk much more about that, to politicians, the UN, et cetera. En dat was part of that effort. En we toured de wereld en we had skeptical audiences. Everywhere where I went at the time, 2000, 2001, 2005. En up to mid-2000s, I think, in a private room, a lot of CEOs would not really believe climate change is real. Whatever we say, whatever we prove, et cetera. Now, I think, and then the financial crisis took attention away from that topic for a few years. And my feeling is, it's always hard not to get depressed over time on these panels for a long time. I actually feel there's a bit more momentum right now. I think there's more recognition. I think the reports are stronger. The science is stronger. More people see it. I think the fact that 2017 was the heaviest natural catastrophe year ever in terms of costs. And that's only half of the economic losses covered by insurance. But that was the highest loss he was pretty bad to, above average. So at least I feel there's more momentum now in honesty in a smaller circle. Where did that now help to catch up? Because we have lost so much time. So much time from 93 to now remains to be seen. Sometimes you can have exponential phenomenon. And if enough people believe in it, maybe we're lucky. But I just say we have lost a lot of time. And it's running out. So that's my professional perspective from as a reinsurer. As a company, maybe that's the parallel track. Obviously very early on, we tried to do something our own. So we supported windmills and solar projects on the insurance side. We lowered our carbon footprint to zero. But that's not the heroic thing for a reinsurer. We don't have a heavy footprint. So we reduced where we could. And then we paid for the rest. But more recently, it's more interesting. Because you have to look at your whole value chain and what you influence. And in 2017, so it took us that long. In 2017, the younger people in our asset management department made and lousies back. We were a bond holder, about $130 billion of bonds. That's policy holder money. And they analyzed the last five years of corporate bonds. And they said, we should switch to ESG indices for some of the assets. Because they have actually performed about the same level, but with lower volatility. So it's a good thing. And so they came to the executive board. And we said, OK, what percentage of this $130 billion would like to switch? And they said, everything. Ja. So we paused a little while. And we agreed to do it. So we switched in 17. Everything, $130 billion ESG. And over the years, nervous, is it performing as well. It's performing actually better since then. So we're lucky on that side. But it needed a bit of courage. We were one of the first. On the underwriting side, we also support all kinds of companies. So what can we do there? And it's clear we also there need to go further. And encouraging certain behavior or discouraging certain other behavior. But when you go there, you need a lot of courage. Whatever you do, you'll be criticized. And so this year, we came out with a policy where we thought we need to support some of the emerging economies on the transition. So we can ensure coal mines in China, because China indeed is making the biggest progress, we think. But in mature economies, as we said before, it makes no sense to reopen a coal mine. Now others can say, no, you should ensure it. We decided not to. The business loss is not huge. But there you start to talk real money. En I think it's just, I would just encourage people to contribute through their own value chain, whatever they can in this whole process, just because of the urgency. And then final point, you might say our shareholders don't want that. But it's not true. We go and talk to all the shareholders. You notice, I think Fika said it, there's a huge wave coming with pension funds, sovereign funds, et cetera, who say, what are you doing in that field? So actually, it's an intelligent thing to do. Plus the millen in your own business. So I think there's ample cases for CEO to take more courageous actions and you won't always get it right and you will be criticized. Thank you. I always thought the most powerful argument for climate change being a real problem was the insurance companies because you can listen to NGOs and people say, yeah, you can even listen to heads of state. But the insurance companies saying it's real because it's costing us money, right? So here's the evidence, we're paying out more. And so I think that's a fascinating point. We're going to go around and talk to people again. We're going to be a little quicker this time after those kind of opening statements. And I want to ask you, Prime Minister Ruta, about your conversations. Take us behind the scenes when you talk to other heads of state, the most confidential conversations that you have with other heads of state and EU regulators. And maybe talk a little bit about the problem that Fika identified, which is the cost and the tradeoffs and how do you pay for that and which countries are doing it right and which countries are not. All that gossipy stuff. Because we are amongst ourselves. Yeah, there's no one who couldn't possibly be listening. There's a camera that's brought to us. Let me say a few things. First of all, we're Sigrid Kaag, minister for foreign aid and foreign trade in the Netherlands. I visited Couteres, the Secretary General of NATO last year, September during the UN week. He was very worried. And he said we need leadership from countries like the Netherlands but also France, New Zealand, countries in Africa, countries like China in Latin America to make sure that as a world community we keep committing to the Paris climate agreement. We have now seen in Katowice that we were able to agree on a rulebook. But we were not able to get agreement on an international carbon measuring system that has not been achieved and we need it urgently. So I took that on board. I spoke this morning, for example, it's not that new anymore than Prime Minister of New Zealand and many others. And this is one thing. So how to make sure that in the regional discussions we maintain that level of ambition collectively. Because as Fajke was saying, if we don't, and he was mentioning this example of the permafrost situation in Russia, then you could have a sort of acceleration and that would have a enormous impact. So I'm very much committed to do that. At the same time, I want my country to stay competitive. And I do believe that we can do this in such a way that people, if you can take the people along, that we have more jobs and more innovation, et cetera. And I do believe that we can all do that. For example, I spoke this morning with the new president of Brazil and there is the paradox that the large agricultural sector in Brazil is negatively impacted at this moment by the fact that there are so many environmental issues in that part of Latin America. This is a paradox because you would always think there's either you are in favor of the farmers or you're in favor of handling this issue of climate change. No, you need to tackle climate change in order for the farmers to still have a business model in the future. Again, at the national level, we have these intricate debates. The Netherlands, as I said, half the country below sea level, that means that we always had to sit together, all these farmers, all these people for centuries to decide to the dykes are being built. That means that we have a total disrespect for hierarchy in the Netherlands. We do things ourselves by talking, talking, talking and then agreeing. And we have tried to do the same with this. I'm not sure we will be successful. I think we can be successful. We have involved over 150 NGOs, societal organizations, local communities, et cetera, et cetera, to discuss coming to this draft climate agreement at a national level, on which we have to decide in April. The good thing is that you have a broad level of support. The bad thing is that it takes somewhat more time that you always find out that you might have had this or that organization on board, so you have to get them on board later on. And then we have to be very careful that this citizen perspective, both financially and what can I do in my personal life but also the business perspective, is het fairly distributed what we are asking from the people versus what we are asking from companies. And of course companies will then in most cases put this also in their pricing what they need to do because they also need to stay competitive. All these issues we have to solve, it is a huge project nationally and internationally. But I am cautiously optimistic that we can maintain the pace. For example, and then I will stop talking, when you add up all the European plans currently on the table, you would already, if everybody would implement what they have agreed to, this would already bring you to 45 percent CO2 emission reduction in Europe. So the target is 40 percent, but all the current plans on the table, if implemented would already lead to 45 percent. We need to bring the target to 55 percent. I am absolutely convinced. And then again to mention one positive example, Emmanuel Macron, he also wants that and many others. So we have to work on that. You did drop some good names there by the way. Because the moderator asked us just before we entered, we should ask questions ourselves and even interrupt. He said to our prime minister, also that. So... Total disrespect for him. Yes, I know. I know that a lot. But a question I would have to our own prime minister, I take my chance. Who is moving faster at this moment? Is it governments or is it companies? Not our government because you are the best prime minister. All countries. No, no, no. No, I am really in a bad way. He wants a tax break. To make the point. Because companies are struggling also. I mean, we need to do it together. But there is a speed difference. I believe there is no big international issue, which we can solve by governments alone. And there's no international big issue, which you can solve by governments and NGOs alone. You need the governments, the NGOs and the companies. Sometimes very small ones. And in many cases, the bigger ones. En when I look at the big companies in the Netherlands like yourselves and AXO and Heineken, I was this morning in a valuing water initiative. Jean-Francois Vauverboxmeer, the CEO of Heineken, taking the lead there. Kalsberg was there with the CEO who was from Dutch origin on this water initiative, which has to do, of course, with climate change. But also the big ones, Shell and Unilever, they are all on the forefront of this. And you need these big companies. And also they understand. There is a license to operate. And profit and purpose have to work in conjunction. Unilever certainly has been way out front. You mentioned Paris and the Paris agreements. And I want to talk to you and ask you about that, Rachel, a little bit, because we're behind. It doesn't seem like we're going to hit the targets. And then you hear, oh, we're going to have to spend a ton of money to get there. And no one has the money. This is the same old song again, right? And what's your take on that? Yeah, no, I mean, the world is awash with money. The question is, who has it? Who are they going to invest it in? And then where do we... And how do we make sure that we leave no one behind as we do that? So Paris set a very clear ambition for a world where we manage global warming to stay below two degrees. And now, basically, science is saying, we can't really afford to do that. We're going to have to get to 1.5. But Paris also said that this can't be balanced on the back of poor people. The political compact in Paris was that we could do this in a way that brought everybody along. And that means that people can have affordable, reliable, clean energy, that they can have access to safe water, that they can have safe food and things like this. En if that piece of the puzzle is left to the side, that political agreement starts to fray very, very quickly. It frays at community level, national level, it frays internationally. So I think it's important to remember that that's what the Paris package was. But paying for it, there are all kinds of inventive ways that Marjoon has led to charge on this. There are all kinds of inventive ways to harness the financial sector to the productive economy, which is something that we lost over the last few decades. Climate change, notwithstanding, right? The financial sector is not driven to drive our economies forward to that kind of purpose that the Prime Minister had talked about. And so, for example, carbon taxes, carbon pricing, Fikis led to charge on this for many years. It gets a bad rap because Emmanuel Macron, God is communications wrong, right? But you look at examples of where it's right and this has become the electoral issue in Canada, where you've actually got experience of revenue, neutral, carbon pricing. China's about to introduce something. There's a lot of experience of what works, what doesn't work. But let me tell you, if you put a carbon price of $50 into an economy that looked something like the United States, I'm not saying the United States, and you made it revenue neutral, you could give every taxpayer in a country like the U.S. money back that would make them better off than they are today. And you'd have enough leftover. And you'd have enough leftover to put into the future fund that will help those people who will be displaced or who will suffer in the transition in the short run because their jobs might disappear or because they need to be re-skilled and re-trained. You would have enough to invest in their future. En ik denk dat er een heel belangrijk ding is dat we de truth moeten vertellen. De methane vertrekt. Dit is makkelijk. Maar wanneer we de truth vertellen dat er een deel is, er is iets voor iedereen om te doen, ik denk dat het heel moeilijk is om te imagineren dat de publiek ons in dit crusade gaat joinen als ze vertrekken en vertrekken. En dan zijn er al een stuk van platitudenaar en soms fouten. En ik denk dat er echt truth komt van authentische businessleaderschap. Er is echt truth komt van authentische politiek leadership. Je hoort over New Zeeland. Ik denk dat New Zeeland een heel moeilijk pathway heeft. Het heeft veel methane in zijn economie. Het zal hurten. Maar ze maken de committment. Europees maken de committment. En ik denk dat dat authentische leadership moet komen van business en van politieën. En dan geeft het de publiek een kans om te weten hoe ze kunnen worden een deel van de solution. In het meantime, jonge mensen gaan naar de steden en zeggen, ik wou niet wachten. Ik zal geen voetbouw hebben. Ik wil een job. Ik wil mijn kinderen veilig zijn. Ik wil kunnen brengen in de lucht. Ik denk dat het een fijnvindigere request is. En ik denk dat je dat gaat zien. Spreden, wanneer we ervaren om een soort meer populistisch en een soort nationalistisch moeds, die hier veel discussie maken. Er is een andere moed op de sted, waarin ik basic needs heb. Ik wil ze in een groene economie meten. Ik wil ze nu meten. Dus geld is eigenlijk niet het probleem. En Martin heeft dat proberen. Als ik het zou zeggen, het geld is een grote wasp voor geld. En de vraag is, wie heeft de geld? We weten het. De private sector heeft de geld. Maar het is concentratief. Ja, maar ik zou je ooit vragen. De private sector heeft de geld. Want als je kijkt naar de financiën van onze energietransitie, ik weet niet wat de factuur is, of het factuur 10 of factuur 100 is, waarin de private sector meer moet investeren dan de publieke sector om de transitie te doen. Dus ik weet niet wat je begint te zeggen. Maar ik wil zeggen, wat we moeten doen om de transitie te doen. We praten hier in deze panel over de leadership van het klimaat, het adressant klimaatverandering. Maar ik wil zeggen, de goverlanders moeten sneller, zo sneller, dat ze de potentiële private sector moeten investeren. Want ze moeten financiën. Nog iemand zullen ze echt financiën. Want als ik naar de nummers kijk, moet de geld uitnodigen. Of doe je dit niet? Nee, ik denk dat het gewoon... Een van de redenen waarom Paris werkt, is dat de message van de business om de goverlanders te doen is, als je dit doet, kunnen we het overleven. En wat is er gebeurd sinds Paris, dat er soms politisch, op een internationale niveau, dat politische leadership er onder de pressie is. We hebben gezien dat sommige mensen een beetje een wabbel en een paar geografieën gezet zijn. En ik denk dat de business message hier heel, heel klik is. We moeten de lang termen targeten. We moeten de strategie's. We moeten jullie om de coherentie over je macroeconomiek en je fiscale politieën te doen. En als je dat doet, dan zal je bij hoe snel we kunnen gaan. Dus ik geloof met Fike. Right, maar het is verschillend in verschillende landen ook. Dus let's take China, for instance, we're talking about leadership. En ik ben interesserd, Majoune, in your take on exactly how committed the leadership in China is when it comes to this issue. Maybe I cover both in terms how we kick off the Green Finance program in China more quickly than many other places. And the other one is really the points that's made, you know, how do we convert a huge amount of brown money into green money? The brown money are probably five, ten times bigger than the green money. Now on China, I think it's a little trick, you know, to convince the top policy maker that the financial system has to play a critical role in greening the economy. I think a few things contributing to this understanding. One is we had a massive problem of air pollution in 2013. If you were in Beijing 2013 early in the year, the PM2.5 number went up to 1,000 in one day. En dat was, I think, 50 times higher than a safe level. So people began to talk about air pollution every day. They began to watch the hourly based release of the PM2.5 number. And that creates a lot of momentum. And we leveraged that momentum, which is the public momentum saying everybody wants the government to be green and wants the financial system to be green. And secondly, we estimate a huge amount of money that's needed for green investment en telling the government you don't have the money. You have to rely on the financial system to mobilize the money or to convert the brown money into green money for you. And these are basically two arguments. I think it was very swift to convince the government within a few months and it was codified into the highest level of government document. It's called Equal Civilisation Reform Plan put out by the Central Party Committee and the State Council. Now once in countries like us, developing countries, the top leadership, puts this into his mouth since we move very fast. And then it became mandates for central bank to draft the regulation and rules and incentives and all that. Then we create a lot of different markets. Just give you an example of the green bond market. In OECD country, it's largely market driven, right? The market associations will create rules and guidelines and all that. We put in the green bond guideline and the green bond catalog which are letting drafting on the central bank website. We said you can follow that on a voluntary basis, but 100% of the guys follow them. So this is a convening power of the government once you have the conviction at the senior level. So the green bond was an example and the green funds was another example. We created 400 green equity funds last three years. Also at this push, given the push from the government plus many other innovations like we are now pushing banks to do environmental stress testing. ICBC has done this ensuring to the rest of the financial sector if you land it to polluting high carbon sectors, you end up with high and non-performing long ratio. Just a model is going to shift the composition of the lending. Now back to the second point so much money available in the world and only tiny part is in green. You mentioned ESG investment. I think your company is great. A lot of ESG. The world I think only have a few percent of institutional money in ESG assets. In terms of bank balance sheets, de average bank may have only less than 10 percent green on the balance sheet. So what we need to do is to convert much more a larger proportion of these non-green-brown assets into the green. That's incentive. So the government has to put incentive. Not only sort of economic incentive, sometimes signal is very important. The president, the prime ministers, central bank governor coming out and speak. That's a lot of incentive and disclosure. It's a huge incentive. Basically penalizing those guys who are not doing green. And of course some real incentive, money type of incentive will be needed. I do want a question. I don't want a short shrift to you, but I do want to throw the floor open for questions because I know that some people out here probably want to ask the panel some questions. We've got a gentleman right here. If we get a microphone to just hang on one second. And maybe if anyone has a question for Christian so he doesn't feel left out. I'll look back to you. You can take it. Hi, I'm Jaydeep. I'm a global shaper from India and I work on bringing clean energy access to the remote communities in Himalayas by displacing kerosene with solar. My question is that we have talked about organizations and governments, but what about the people themselves? So in India, Africa, if you look at the average amount of per capita emission of carbons, it's somewhere between 0.5 to 1.5. And whereas if you take the developed world, it's up to eight and nine. And soon enough, these people as the income levels are increasing, will eventually end up at those levels. So how do you sort of reach out to these people both in the developed part of the world where you tell them you need to get your emissions down. But then the people who are starting this journey, how can we ensure that they make their responsible choices and not end up with the same amount of carbon emissions that people in the developed world already have. A good question now. I'm going to give you, you don't have to answer that one because it's more of a racial or prime minister question. We're working together right on this meeting as we've bank him on. So I think you should talk about your very polite. Ja, no, here I think you need to do both. So there has to be regional leadership. For example, Narendra Modi. He is working on very specific programs, cleaning the holy Ganges River, cleaning India. And I've spoken numerous times with him. There's large groups of Dutch companies who can help him to be more successful, of course, in conjunction with Indian companies to do this. So you need the local regional in this case. And India is now, I think, the second biggest country in the world in size of population. So it is at this stage one of the biggest countries in the world and one of the top 10. And then when you are particularly discussing companies like India, it is not only about climate mitigations, it is also about climate adaptation. You have to make sure that things are safe and sound. For example, we have worked from the Netherlands in Bangladesh, making sure that Bangladesh stays dry, the feet stay dry in Indonesia with Jakarta, which is basically sinking every year a couple of centimeters and working with them to make sure that Jakarta can maintain as a capital and stay safe. We are doing this in Latin America and South Africa. We are doing this in other places. And we have established this global commission adaptation, the global central adaptation. And the good news yesterday was that China is now opening a regional office in China on this issue of adaptation. And the World Bank has decided to spend half of its money on climate mitigation, half of its money on climate adaptation. So it is 50 billion in five years. We were yesterday in that meeting, 50 billion in five years. We had a fantastic sum. Bill Gates, Kristelina Georgieva en General Secretary Ban Ki-moon, de priefje General Secretary of the UN, they are leading that whole group. And from the Netherlands and others, Angela Merkel, Theresa May and many other leaders, including the Render Modi, we are supporting that process. So we have also to focus on adaptation, not only on mitigation, because the small island development states to India, but also my own country. We see levels would rise even further. We have to also work on adaptation. Do you see sea levels rising in terms of the systems that you have in place in your country? Well, we at this moment have to think again about our dykes. Right. Because sea levels are rising and people don't want these old, concrete, big dykes behind which houses are basically disappearing. So we are now designing this new system, building this nature, which is, for example, creating small artificial islands in the sea, which would then change the course of water in such a way that the waterfront itself is less vulnerable to the rising sea levels. So we are putting in place all these new things, but also some very old ideas. For example, we were used to build our farms on a territory called a small hill, which was manmade. And this was a technology from the 12th and 13th century. We are doing it again in some of our provinces in the Netherlands, where we see the rivers rising en there is an increasing risk that rivers will overflow. So again, we are sometimes now building our farms on small manmade small hills where livestock can retreat in case the rivers would overflow. And we are also implementing that in money wise, quite cheap technology in many other parts of the world. We've been on the cutting edge for centuries, as you were saying, it's very interesting. I mean, it's interesting to see that some of these techniques from 800 years ago are still valid today. Can I just very, very briefly just go back to the question. There's good news and bad news. The good news is that for those people who don't have access to much energy or to any energy, which is about a billion people in the world, the new technologies of distributed modern renewable energy are by far the cheapest and quickest way to get them reliable and affordable energy. And you see that happening obviously very quickly in India, but now through work like you and others elsewhere in the Himalayas, it's happening in the small island states en it's happening now in East Africa and now really some stuff really beginning to start moving quickly in West Africa. The bad news is that even though we know that this is the answer, very, very little private investment, but domestically from India is probably an outlier, but if you look in Africa, very little domestic investment from Africans into that is happening, very little private investment is still flowing into it. And almost no, or nothing like the amount of concessional finance from multilaterals like the World Bank, Africa Development Bank, or from biladerals from the UK, et cetera, OECD countries in their aid, this is not yet flowing anywhere near enough into the off-grid renewable solutions which are available. And we're going to have to speed that up because otherwise these people will not be able to participate in the growth story of their economies. So the good news is we can do it cleanly and affordably. Bad news is we haven't actually put our money where our mouth is yet. Great. We're running a little short on time. So question here, thanks. In the German newspaper Handelsblad there was three, four weeks ago statistics that said... Can you identify yourself, please? Can you identify yourself? My name is Wolf Henning Scheider. I'm CEO of Automatic Automobile Group. In the German paper Handelsblad there was recently a statistic three, four weeks ago dat er meer dan 550 coal power plants were built in Asia. En dat is de equivalente. Het was by far meer dan de hele CO2 emissions in Germany. En ik zou willen weten wat je doet van de politieke kant dat Katowice niet alleen een mooie konventie is en een aantal signaties is, maar dat het echt gebeurt, omdat het niet zo lijkt. Misschien ben ik erin, maar op die statistics ben ik duidelijk. Dus er is een heel specifieke probleem. Well, first of all, coal is not a part of the story going forward. The speed with which countries transition away from coal is going to be different. But we have a number of countries in southeast and east Asia who are building and plan to build a number of coal-fired power plants. Put yourself in their shoes, right? They're getting subsidised technology, subsidised finance and sometimes even subsidised feedstock from countries that signed the Paris Agreement. And there's no like for like solution on offer easily available. So you can build a coal-fired power plant reasonably cheaply because somebody is going to help you do it and you know that you can connect it into your grid and it will operate and you know you can do it in two or three years time and you've fulfilled an electoral promise to increase generation. So what we have to be able to do as an international community is say okay, but here's a better offer. Here's the technical assistance on grid stabilisation and everything else that you need. Here's the assistance that you need in order to move your regulation forward and here's the subsidised finance or the finance that's easily available and can be quickly applied for you to have storage and modern renewables or gas or something else, right? So we haven't, we know that we have to help these countries transition but frankly we haven't put a package on the table that's attractive enough at the moment and the good news for me is that some of these things are being talked about here. Great, last question here. Can we just get... I need to come. Very patiently, I'm so sorry. So maybe you could get the question to you. Sorry if I... Hi, my name is Michael Itzer. I'm the CEO of the ICAW. So the panel has been very candid today. So thank you very much for that. So I'd like to take you forward to 2050 and there's a completely new generation sitting on that podium. How are they going to assess our leadership today on this issue? You have one minute. Less than that because we have to wrap up. It's just a quick thought. Well, there'll be more women on the panel in 2050. Yes, on that. I agree with that. I bought you some time. Thanks, Rachel. By the way, I agree with you. Diversity is one of the big things. Diversity of sorts. If we don't move fast and if we don't unlock the private sector money which we talked and if governments are not helping us fast enough to unlock the money the next generation will look very, very sad to us. We had a good time, we had a good drink, we had a good food, we had a good life and we transmitted the burden to them and that is irresponsible. I think your point, I cannot predict how they will look to us. I hope, the only hope I can have is I hope they will look to us that we showed leadership and I would feel awful if we cannot show that. En it is up to us still now here in Davos in those sessions to decide on how they will look to us. And it's up to us to fill that in right now. Great. Christian, do you have a final thought? How can you beat that? I absolutely agree. I don't think we should go into the mode of it's too late and nothing can be done. We should never do that. I think we should see the future as it's our choice, our collective choice and each of us has to contribute and try to make sure that in 2050 people look at it and there will be changes. There will absolutely be changes but we will say it's maybe one of the first challenges where humanity had to come together. That's maybe the opportunity. Great. Thank you for that great question because it really kind of kept the whole session I thought and I think we really got to understand the complexity of the problem and the solutions and how important the coordination will be between NGOs and companies and governments. Please join me in thanking this great panel. Mahjoon Christian Monther Rachel Kite And particularly the leadership by Prime Minister Ruta. Thank you very much. That was really wonderful. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Thank you for your leadership.