 Good morning, everyone. And so I'm really delighted to be back with my community. I feel often like a bit of an interloper, with a hearing due to the sciences of the world. So this is probably the high point of this particular talk. So thank you again for the invitation to be here. Just decoration, I'm still a local government official, so I have several hats that are here. The hat that I wear today is in my role as an ITCC co-chair. And for those of you who don't know who the ITCC is, it seems to come from a panel on climate change and we are 30 years old, we're young. And the panel is made up of a group of countries, 195, whose job it is to resemble best scientists in the world and natural and social sciences, to do three things. It seems to need to rally an objective source of information around the causes of climate change, the impacts of climate change, and the responses to climate change for positive makers to use in their decision making. And for those of you who don't know ITCC's history, it's been a lot of time on focusing on the first two elements. The causes and impacts of climate change. I refer to the assessment cycle as ITCC 2.0 because we're seeing now the science moving closer to providing the options related to solutions as Mark has indicated. Now that's a powerful case to be in the dark side of it, as though when I introduced myself as a co-chair of ITCC, people have this image in mind and it strikes terror into our hearts from most. And so today, I have to say, I'm going to leave you to read the science. The science is the care, but I am not going to bother spelling in that because we have moved forward in the 1.5 report. This is a much stronger focus on looking at what the options for action are. And that's really what I want to underscore is that this is not a scientific report, people. This is a political report. It's about science providing objective source around the kind of options that we have in front of us. Both in terms of the impacts of climate experience, but also more importantly how we might respond to them. So where does this big mandate come from? Well, in fact, ITCC was very brave. I was still a negotiator way back in 2015 in Paris and part of the decision test that was agreed to there was in fact to ask the local constitution of the ITCC to apply its mind to this idea of increasing the world ambition to 1.5 degrees Celsius. What did that mean? Is it possible, could it be good, with the questions we were asking ourselves in the negotiated form? When that invitation came to the ITCC in 1995 countries, they said, well, that's a pretty cool invitation. How does this link to the real world? We're going to show us a bunch of graphs. What are all those mean? So scientists know that's not good enough. You can actually expand that language. You're going to think through the science. You're going to read those systems of papers. But you're going to think about that science in the context of the most pressing issues. So the threat of climate change. The desire to achieve a more sustainable development problem. And an important new problem, the biggest problem that we have, the eradication of poverty. So this was the stretch of the ITCC made out for its scientists. We then ran into it. And they began working through that process and assessing the literature. And I'm going to tell you what we found using the questions of the down and low government books. So what do we know about where we are now having read those six miles into papers? Well, essentially, we know that from pre-industrial, from petrary industrial, and we regard that for the purposes of this report between 1850 and 1900, we've already got one degree of global warming in the back. And so we're not starting out to local. We're really starting out in a high point in terms of that global average temperature. And unfortunately, temperature continues to go up. If any of you have seen the global carbon project recently released, you can see why, because our emissions continue to escalate. And our current rate of warming, which is about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade, will reach this first mile goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius, somewhere between 30 and 30 degrees Celsius. But the important issue is that the amount of carbon dioxide you currently have in the atmosphere does not yet commit us to 1.5. So we still have the agency there, still the ability to act, still the ability to bend the curve. The problem is that no degree of global warming is safe. And I feel complacent at one, because even at one degree, we are already seeing consequences for people, nature, and livelihoods. And we've seen it in terms of extreme weather, we've seen it in terms of sea level rise, we've seen it in terms of the last loads of products we've asked. So complacency is not part of what we should be playing. So if we were really living in a world where there's a high degree of risk and certainly vulnerability and exposure both in our natural and human systems, where we actually want to go to, well, we really do want to follow the need that the Paris Agreement sees after us, because the size of the air and it was the biggest surprise to the scientific community. When this invitation came out of Paris, many scientists shook their heads and said, this is not possible. What better be possible to... to detect the difference, was there a pause? It's not really possible to detect this difference between 1.5 and 2, but lo and behold, because of the response of the scientific community, the signs that go to the table we are, and this show of all sorts of things, but what's important to me, they already care the benefits for human and natural communities, to increase our mission in an 8.1.5 and 7.2. And that's because we'll have less impacts from between where the people live. We will have less sea level rise, so about 10 centimeters less, what that translates into is 10 million fewer people exposed to the rising seas. But again, don't be complacent, because that still means that somewhere between 30 and 7, that it's just even if people will be exposed to sea level rise. We'll also see smaller reductions in the importance of crops that we've heard. I wish I knew where this thing was when I came in the end. This one here, a jurist, we've heard about the importance of maize and cultures and people, and how if you lose these crops, it's not going to impact on food security, but the new systems of people. We will also have 50% less people exposed to water stress and stress from our ecosystems than we can make them. Say we'll have a few million people exposed to climate-generated risk that's susceptible to property low impact on biodiversity and species. Importantly though, 1.5 of the self is not a safe guardrail. Even at 1.5 in 10th year or two, there are only those places in the world that risk most of the sea level in the Arctic. There are just proportionately high risks of even changes at 1.5. So the Arctic, the dry land region, so the principle of Ryan, yeah, I was scared when he said that each time a sign was forwarded to this year, there's more island living in the states than these southern countries. We'll also see there that 1.5 in 10 countries all the basic essentials are sustainable development so if we're going to move to a thesis that Jesus is critical, but we know that the government has a wide range of adaptation options to reduce these risks and definitely less adaptation on the environment if you do that too. And this is a very important part so having seen that risk and knowing where we're going to I see the furniture remain but I just knew that this wouldn't exist so I was taken to my imagination. What are our solutions? What are the four components? Of course, no. So the question is, how do we get there? And this to me is the most important message of that entire report. It's not any of the graphs. It's this statement in chapter 4. The report applies to the road map for change. It identifies the four big systems that we have to apply mine to that we have to change probability if we go to a cheaper standard of vision. We require rapid, far-reaching, unprecedented transitions in energy, in land, in urban, and I was delighted to hear about emphasis on urban particularly urban centres. This is a really important area and infrastructure, and industrial systems. These four big road systems are where we need to put our energy, where we need to affect our transformations. So let's talk about how the report tells us about these four big systems. Obviously, top of mind for the negotiations is the energy system. We are going for a variety of complex tables that talk to us about these changes but essentially what this tells us is that fossil fuel has to go down dramatically. This table shows us two of the pathways that we looked at. One with the sustainability focus and one in the middle of the road. In all of those, we have to reduce the use of coal anywhere over 50% to 75% by treating the attention to 50% increase in the use of renewable energies. So what does that mean? Essentially, we've got to do carbonising energy. We've got to get through the fossil fuels of coal. Oil needs to stand around to the subcarb pathways. We've just set an increase in gas but that's going to be accompanied by the use of carbon capture storage. We've got to set an increase in the use of renewable energies and we've got to exit fossil fuel generation. We've got to electrify energy into this. So if we move energy into or into a platform of renewables, then we've got to electrify energy. So we've got to ensure that all of the infrastructure is obviously about to come under change. That's important. The message of the report is that it has to be associated with an adaptation together. In terms of the industrial systems, again, the report calls out the importance of energy efficiency as a critical impact on the energy industry. So we've got to make sure that all of the infrastructure is obviously about to come under change. So the importance of energy efficiency is a critical intervention. Electrification, the use of hydrogen it talks about industrial carbon capture, utilization of storage. So for example, the capture of carbon into cement and using that to go by waste industry and a circular economy. Urban and infrastructure systems that one has touched my heart as well as government officials working in the city have worked on land use and urban planning to create those economies of scale that allow efficient servicing. The adoption of low carbon transport fuels, again, will move away from the use of fossil fuels in transport, the shift of carbon transportation, modern motorized transport, smart grids, digital appliances, green infrastructure and building codes and standards are a critical part of adaptation and education. In terms of management and system transitions there is a group that speaks to a variety of interventions, things like reforestation the sustainable intensification of agriculture, conservation agriculture, ecosystem restoration weaker than management and an element that is very strongly and all the way that the ITCC does is the use of local and indigenous knowledge where we are understanding the local condition and finding ways to bring that knowledge into the formal assessment process of the ITCC. We touched on that in this report for making greater strides in the subsequent reports. So, for example, in the motion in crisis official report that we will release next year in the Polar chapter there we have access directly to people who are holds of indigenous knowledge as part of the assessment process. So, really a knowledge is a broader set of knowledge to contribute to the process. How do we get there? Well, we can only achieve this broad range of admissions adaptation and education to remove to sustainability so that notion of sustainable development is the keystone is an important part of the development agenda because it enables the kind of rapid from reaching unprecedented change that is required in these systems. The report lands on the fact that that drive from admissions sanitation and education and sustainable development is best achieved through the development pathways with low energy demand, low material consumption and low carbon food. So, that's really where the sweet spot lies. But they're all bare-faced and trade-offs. We can't live without that. If you're going to act ambitiously, there are going to be winners, but there are also going to be users and we have to think about who's going to lose and where they're going to lose and how we manage those trade-offs. So, the trade-offs are as important as the synergies if we're interested in equity and social justice. Because of those concerns the report lands very importantly that this rapid, far-reaching far-reaching unprecedented transformation and transitions has to be ethical and fair. We cannot act ambitiously and further marginalize what is really more important for. So, we have to choose to take a careful mix of policies and the report calls on very carefully the need for climate resilience development pathways. So, the pathway to ambitious adaptation and mitigation focus on sustainable development with equity and social justice as we call to that process. This implies that we are going to have to change the way that we do our business. We're going to have to go to multi-level governance so we're going to have all spheres of society talking to one another and having a table on this is why these sorts of needs are so important. There has to be innovation and importantly, there has to be a redirection of investment. We cannot continue to invest the way we're doing. We have to start revaluating our financial flows into the provision for example of climate resilience and low carbon infrastructure. So, the underlying message of this overall report to the world and I think that's why it's captured everyone's imagination, is that we have to have urgent and far-reaching action and just to gain more support that is global emissions have to peak before 2030 in all of the pathways that are compatible with 1.5. So, it's an entire snowfall and if you really encode all of those new stages that keep saying it's needed like 12 years before the end of the world you don't have 12 years in fact you probably have 12 months because if you're going to achieve those rapid, far-reaching transition you have to start acting now. You can't wait to be able to be able to be able to do it every day of the month and, you know, sort of the night on that day so the emissions have to peak the carbon dioxide emissions have to fall by 25% by 2030 and each net zero by 2050 so what that means is the amount of greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere have to be equal by the amount that we call out that's a tough chart by the lower century. We have to focus on ethical and fair transitions in the sandwiches action and the report is very careful there is no geophysical reason why we should not be able to achieve a global one point five degrees it's all about the willingness of governments and the society now so science is not the obstacle the natural systems are not the obstacle the obstacles that solicitors and solicitors or that each of us are going to do a lot of changing that to ensure that the GNI of the world that creates these transitions thanks very much