 Ladies and gentlemen, in 1972, a group of 100 scientists, economists, business leaders and former politicians who named themselves Club of Rome published The Limits of Growth, a manifesto questioning our development model in light of our limited earth resources. Where do we stand 50 years later? Definitely, there has been a mobilization of the international community with summits in Rio, Kyoto and a major step in Paris COP 21, where 196 countries collectively agreed to limit global warming by 1.5 Celsius degrees and setting a clear direction on that. Of course, following COP's made additional progress and recently closed COP 27 held in Egypt, agreed on the principle of a compensation fund for loss and damages from climate-induced disasters and this came after an adaptation fund and alignments on taxonomy, reporting rules, etc. This climbing warming limit goal translates into a need to drastically curb carbon emissions by the middle of the century and at this point, some would say that failing national commitments to make it happen, the net zero by 2050 remains aspirational. As a matter of fact, adapting to climate change comes with a cost. Transitioning to cleaner energy and we've seen that with solar panels or batteries requires massive resources, minerals and metals that are pretty scarce on earth. There is more and more the perceived perception that a change in paradigm is needed when it comes to the use of natural resources. As we speak, COP 15 on diversity is ongoing in Montreal with a view to sanctuaries 30% of earth on land and sea by 2030. On the positive side, we need to acknowledge that we are witnessing innovation at a pace that is historically high across all domains. This is thanks to new technologies but also with available new resources coming in particular from the venture capital and private equity industry that has turned startups into a new source of innovation, not only in the digital space but also in more capital intensive areas like deep tech and clean tech. The good news also is that corporate world is now embracing the sustainability imperative, not only from a reporting and compliance standpoint but as a lever to rethink the entire value chain from industrial production, operations and business models to supply chain, of course with technology as an enabler. Hence the question today is not if but how, how can we scale fast promising technologies today in their infancy, carbon capture technology, synthetic fuels as an example, how fast can we move transition to clean energy, wind solar and especially hydrogen, how can we do more with less, less leakages, less waste and how can circular economy contribute to decarbonization and energy transition. To debate on these issues is my pleasure to welcome here on stage a panel that we are going to take a look at, thank you, which is a mixed panel and we have one of our members Bruno who is normally in Visio. So I will start with you, Andrew. Andrew, you are a researcher at OECD in particular. You've been publishing a lot of publications on the material and how that correlates to environmental impact and climate change. So can with in particular a focus on waste, can you tell us more about that? Yes, thank you very much. First I'd like to say thank you to Songnim and the organizers at the World Policy Conference. It's an absolute honor to be here today. So yes, I think that the OECD, we are taking a look at this interaction between the environment and economic systems. And at the core of this interaction is this sort of paradox that when we look at our economic systems we begin to see economies of scale that with each additional input we see an improvement in our ability to produce. But when we consider our natural resource use we see the exact opposite, diminishing marginal returns. And so the question becomes how do these two relationships work with one another and how can we find a new economic system to break free from this paradox? So at the OECD we have done a number of studies. In particular you can see on the right here this is some of our work regarding global materials outlook. So this is taking a look at macroeconomic models and seeing what do we anticipate happening in 2060 around materials use. And so we notice doubling in total in terms of weight of material use in 2060 compared to 2011. We notice that materials will constitute roughly one fifth of greenhouse gas emissions in 2060. This is often when we account for demographic change and when we account for the structural changes to the economy that we anticipate that this is not going to be uniform across the economic sectors. We anticipate construction being particularly well impacted in terms of material use which we'll hear more about later in terms of concrete. And we also notice the increase in fossil fuel use. And so this is a question about material use that has been around and has preoccupied economists for a long period of time. I think 200 years ago it was Tourjeu from France who noticed this diminishing marginal returns when applied to agriculture. When we talk 100 years ago it was an analyst at the United States Geological Survey who mentioned that we might be facing peak oil within the next three years. This was 100 years ago. 50 years ago you mentioned Lucia, the club of Rome. And I think in the last 50 years there's a bit more nuance around resource use. It's the fear has sort of developed away from a fear of exhaustion of resources into more looking at the impacts of our use of natural resources. And so when we think about these impacts one way of thinking of this could be the planetary boundaries at the Stockholm Resilience Institute and noticing biodiversity and biochemical flows that these are areas that we've already gone beyond what we would expect from our economic system. And we look at what's next. It's possibly land use, it's climate change. These are big problems facing our economic system and how we use our natural resources. And when we think about what could possibly be the solution, like one area that the OECD is very interested in is in circular economy. So this is on the left side of the screen here. You can see what we mean by circular economy. We break it down into three particular parts. We think about efficiency. How can we use natural resources more efficiently? Get more economic productivity out of a certain amount of resource use. How can we slow our resource use? Meaning how can we use and keep products at the highest value possible for the longest period of time possible? And then we also want to close our economic systems. We want to address the leakage of our products into the environment and the impacts that they have. So we can talk a bit more with the next slide here about applying this to one particular material use, which is plastics. So I'll just wait for the next slide to appear. Can I move? But essentially we've done a similar project around global materials outlook. We've done a similar one just recently with plastics use globally. So this was when we take a look at plastics. These are ubiquitous material in modern economies that we see this more so in the OECD countries, but we anticipate growth in the use per capita in the non-OECD countries between now and 2060. So on the right side, you can see that we've estimated in 2019 that the economic system produced 460 million tons of plastics. That's when we talk about why this is an issue of that 460 million tons, 350 roughly became waste in 2019. And when we consider how this growth, we also notice a growth in what is leaking to the environment. So in 2019, we estimated that roughly 22 million tons of plastics leaked into the environment. And when you compare that with what was recycled, we estimated that 9% of total plastics waste was recycled in 2019. So this is a major problem facing us. And just last week, we had the first meeting of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee taking a look at a binding commitment regarding plastics, which was agreed upon through the United Nations Environment Assembly. So I think this is my first intervention to describe the issues and I look forward to describing policy solutions in the second intervention. Thank you. Thank you, Andrew. I'm now moving to Yosong Yim, your VP Vice President at the Corporate Strategy Center of Yosong Corporation, a prominent South Korean conglomerate. And what's interesting is that your company is already embracing, natively to say so, recycling in all its processes. Could you tell us more about that? Sure. Thank you, Lucia. For those of you who don't know what Yosong does, today we have a very diversified business portfolio ranging from textiles to energy, chemicals, and advanced materials. But what you have to understand is that Yosong started out in 1966 as a maker of nylon and polyester fiber. And since then, we have expanded these products into tire cords, carpets, air bags, seat belts to name just a few. So, therefore, the big portion of our recycling program in Yosong revolves around the reuse of pre-consumer and post-consumer nylon and polyester waste. Currently, we can do most of the mechanical recycling of polyester and nylon. But chemical recycling is much harder. This is because the key success factor in mechanical recycling is actually securing clean waste of nylon and pet products. But for chemical cycling, what you do is you take contaminated dirty nylon and polyester waste, and you break them down by melting it. And you have to filter out the impurities, the contaminated parts. You have to single out all the other compounds that you don't need. And you have to single out the raw material that you want to actually recycle. So, this is much harder than mechanical recycling. And in this area, Yosong still has some work to catch up. But I think the point that I want to make here is that, as you can see, there are many recycled products out there already. I mean, the technology is there. But the problem is, is there a demand for these products currently in the market? Sadly, the answer is no. This is because no one is willing to pay for it. Okay? A success story of one of our recycled product is a product named Regen, which is a short for regenerated fiber. What we do is we take used pet bottles, mechanically crush them, and then we use it to re-bake polyester fiber from that. And currently, we can't make enough of them because the only limitations that we have right now is actually trying to secure more of the used pet bottles. But as there's only a limited amount of pet bottles recirculating in the economy, we are very limited. And the demand is there. This is because apparel brands can use 100% recycled pet fiber to make jackets and a lot of clothing. But they're willing to take on these higher prices, which is about 15 or 20% higher than normal non-recycled pet products, pet fiber. They're willing to take on this higher cost because actually raw materials, fibers only account for 20% of the price of clothing that you all wear. So if you factor in the pricing is only 15% higher and the raw material accounts for only 20%, the actual price hikes that the apparel brands have to absorb is only 3% to 4%. But they're willing to do this because the benefits in the form of enhanced brand awareness and increased sales of their recycled clothing is much higher than the cost that they bear buying recycled products. But this is a success story. But the sad thing is that most other polyester and nylon products that we make doesn't share the same story. One example is recycled spandex. Spandex is the elastic fiber that you mix with other fibers to give you the stretchy function of your clothing. The thing with spandex is that you only use 10% of these fibers. You mix 10% spandex with a 90% nylon or pet fiber. So for apparel brands to actually buy higher costing recycled spandex into their brands and then calling it how would you say eco-friendly products is really I don't think no consumer will buy that story. So they're really reluctant to imbibe these other products that make up only a small portion of their raw materials. So I think we have to make more attention needs to be made to increase demands for products that are already out there. And I think this is crucial if you want to actually get the circular economy going as fast as we would like them to. Thank you. So the quality of what needs recycling matters. So one of your byproducts in your industrial process is hydrogen. And you're now looking at that as not only a byproduct but also a source of energy of course. So tell us more about that. Okay. As Lucia just said, we produce hydrogen from a process called PPTH, the hydrogen nation process. What we do is we take a molecule of propane and we strip it with two molecules of hydrogen. And if you strip propane of two molecules of hydrogen, you get a substance called propylene. And if you mix together more propylene with each other, it becomes polypropylene. And polypropylene is the raw material that is used to make thermoplastics. For example, hard pipes, piping, protective films. So it is the source of plastics that we use every day in our lives. But with the hydrogen that is produced, generated in the process of making this polypropylene, what we do is we are taking this hydrogen and we are actually recirculating that into the economy as a fuel for mobility. We're doing that currently as a 50-50 joint venture with Linde of Germany. And we produce, we are currently in the stages of building the liquefaction plan. What we're doing is we're liquefying the hydrogen gas. Currently, all of the hydrogen that is consumed within Korea right now is supplied in the form of gas. But you may ask, then why are you liquefying it? It's really about economics. If you have a vast network of pipeline that is just dedicated to the transport of hydrogen, then hydrogen gas makes sense. But without that network, it's far more cheaper to actually transport large amounts of hydrogen to wherever you want within Korea. This is mainly because liquid hydrogen has a density, which is only about 1-800th of hydrogen gas. This means that you can transport 13 times more hydrogen to refueling station or wherever you need it. Yes, additional costs are borne because we have to actually add the liquefaction plan. And also, we have to keep the hydrogen low to minus 253 degrees to keep it in the form of liquid. Yes, that adds costs to the hydrogen costs. But the savings that we get from the transportation costs far outweigh any rises in costs. So what we're doing is we're building hydrogen fueling station, liquid hydrogen fueling station, and we're targeting non-passenger cars, bigger cars that require more hydrogen, buses and trucks. And we are targeting opening up our plant and our refueling station early 2024. Thank you. So definitely, besides a byproduct, what is interesting in that example is that you become an energy producer, so renewable, and that's also a change in paradigm. So coming back a while for recycling material, let's take a look at a very new approach to that and Bruno Langlois, you're with us by Visio. Thank you for taking the time. After 25 years' experience in the chemical industry, Bruno Langlois has decided to join a young but promising startup called Carbios, which is developing a very interesting approach to not only plastic recycling, but plastic regeneration. So can you tell us more, Bruno? Yes. Thanks a lot for organizing this meeting and sorry for not being with you today. We need to be prepared to not to travel at the last minute, and that's what happened to me. So what Carbios is doing is that Carbios was inspired by nature. If you look at nature, we do not generate waste. Every material at the end of his life is converted back to verging raw materials, and you can have a new generation of life. So Carbios has been looking at microorganisms that are typically producing enzymes, a kind of proteins, and these proteins are capable of accelerating the degradations of materials. So inspired by the nature, we have looked at a biotechnology which is developing an enzyme which is capable of breaking down polyester, which is one kind of the plastics which is being produced massively about 80 million tons per year, essentially going to the packaging for one third and two-third going to the textile industry. And this enzyme is capable of breaking down this polymer back to its two constituents, the original constituents that we are using today and which are produced by oil. So in one word, what we are doing is capability to take our waste and convert them back to raw materials to reproduce polyester, one kind of plastics. And you've seen the number, it's big numbers. So what where we are today, and if you look at the first slide, we are now at the demonstration level. So we are generating all the data which are needed to build plants that we plan to have operational in 2025. And this plant will be able to convert about 50,000 tons. So it's quite small at the scale of what we are doing, and that will be one of my point later. But we'll be able to convert 50,000 tons of waste containing PET back into raw material that can be converted back into virgin like PET. This is important. And if I move to the following slides, we are showing that on that slide that the process that we are operating, so you have a biological process, so an enzyme which is breaking down like a scissor, a molecular scissor. And the conversion rate is quite impressive. This has been 10 years of work in the biotechnology, but we are capable of converting 97% of the PET present in the waste. And an important point here also is to say that we work in water in moderate temperature because enzyme is something, it's a material that doesn't work in a solvent, but we're working in water. We are degrading 97% of the PET which is present, polyester which is present in these samples in less than 24 hours. And even if in the waste, we are other materials, and that's important because when you look at plastics, sometimes you are mixing with other materials, you have dyes, you have heterogeneous materials, you look at your bottles, you have the label sometimes which is made of something different. And in the textile, more particularly, you have mixed of fibers, we mentioned Elastin just a few minutes ago. The enzyme will only be able to recover what is inside the PET, so we can extract without separating physically the material, what is important to remake a virgin like polyester. The last slide, the third slide which is important is of course to say that by doing that, we are diverting our waste, which we are producing massively. I mean, it's interesting to see that we have multiplied the number, the quantity of waste by 12 in the last 15 to 20 years where only the population has been multiplied by less than three. We're obviously going in the wrong direction in terms of producing more and more at the lower cost, making those objects with lesser value thrown away very quickly. For instance, in the textile industry, the average time we are wearing a textile is six times. This is an average. I'm not saying it's valid for every country, it's valid for every objects, but it's showing the wrong direction in terms of waste generations. And we are diverting these materials from incineration and landfilling, regenerate, and on the lifecycle analysis, we see that we are reducing the CO2 emission by 45% roughly using no solvents and working at low temperature. And this is the layout of the plants that we are building in France that will be operational, as I say, in 2025 and ramping up. Carbios will own this first plant, but of course, the carbios is not willing to manage plants. It's a biotech. Our objective is to develop more enzymes, improve the efficiency of enzymes to make sure that we can degrade polyamide, polyester, polyurethane, which are another type of plastics, but also the polyurethane, which is a material which is widely used in the packaging industry. Thank you, Bruno. I think this is a perfect illustration of how innovation can help think different and avoid thinking that mitigating climate change will only be done with more of the same. That's very promising. Now, let me turn to Livia Ribéry-Duceusa. Livia, you are co-founder and chief technology officer of MiniCrit, a spinoff of Cambridge University. And you're working on a self-healing concrete solution. So, again, inspired by our nature. Can you tell us more about that? Yes, sure. To begin with, thanks for the invitation to be in this event. I'm very flattered and good afternoon, everybody. So, bear with me only a little bit of science in this afternoon, but we are going to start talking about why there are so many cracks in concrete. And what happened is concrete, it's widely used, and that's because it's widely available as well, but also because it's very good under compressive load, but not as good as the tensile load. And that's why typically we place rebars inside of concrete to kind of balance out a little bit of those tensile forces. However, if small cracks are formed, what happens is contaminants can enter in the concrete, and corrosion can take place in the rebar. And that's why typically when you go to coastal areas, you can see much more corrosion or corroded surface together with in the UK in the winter, they put salt in the roads as well, and that chloride can escalate the process of corrosion. And with a result of that, what happens is that a lot of money is spent on repair and maintenance actions. And that's a problem because then what we are talking about, as we all know, is that cement is one of the fundamental materials used in the production of concrete. And during the production of cement, it's around seven to eight percent of CO2 emissions during the calcination process. And there are a lot of projects to use less cement like calcined clays or blast furnaces lag. But still there is no clear alternative to it quite yet. And with the growth in population, we know that the number of use of concrete is just going to increase. And we also know that 37 percent of CO2 emissions are associated with the total built environment and that together with actions of repair and maintenance. So in the past 10 years or so at Cambridge, we're investigating self-healing technology for cementitious materials. And that's again, similar to what Bruno was saying, it's mimicking what happens in nature. So if there is a scratch on a tree or there is a scratch on our own skin, there is a self-healing capacity in our own body. Nature has that capacity as well. So we are mimicking that. We are borrowing that lesson and applying that for our infrastructure. And the way we do it is by embedding healing agents inside of the infrastructure, either in discrete elements as capsules or in continuous systems as a vascular system to deliver the healing agent. And with that, we can extend the service life of the infrastructure because we are decreasing all actions that could be associated with repair and maintenance of that infrastructure. We tested that system in the lab and it's showing a lot of potential. But now we started to investigate pathways for commercializing that technology, particularly focusing on the scaling up, but also establishing partnerships to de-risk the technology in application in the relevant environment. And the results that we see with this kind of technology is that it's kind of twofold. On one side, we can see the decrease of actions that are associated with repair and maintenance. But then on the other side, we have outcomes like if you go back to the why the steel or why the rebar is needed in concrete. By enhancing the capacity of concrete of heal itself and close those cracks by itself, we can decrease the amount of steel that it's used. And we have reports saying that we can decrease the amount of steel of up 35%, which is quite a pronounced number in terms of sustainability. And we are also keen on investigating how we can decrease the amount of cement that can be used once that self-healing technology is deployed. That's absolutely astonishing. Minus 35% steel, lengthened duration for the material itself, a wonderful example of new approach, how innovation can help on sustainability. And these two examples are part of the biomematic technologies, which is impressive because they are inspired by nature. So if now we move to the corporate world, Florent, you're in charge of sustainability services at Capgemini. And when you talk to your clients, are they all thinking, as we heard before, like 10 years back, I had on my agenda, digital, five years ago, sustainability, and now geopolitical uncertainties, that really resonates and sounds like constraints. Are they all looking at sustainability and circular economy as a constraint? Thank you, Lucia, for this very accurate question. Indeed, we discuss a lot with all our executive clients. And circular economy has been around for quite some time. It's not a new concept. But we are still stagnated at around 9% of circularity in the material that are injected back in the economy today. And there are a lot of incentive, as you mentioned, to sustainability imperative. Clearly, we heard a lot of very interesting discussions this morning also about the geopolitical pressure and the lack of the difficulty to access to materials, which raises a lot of new questions regarding sovereignty. The price of lithium has gone up and the price of batteries using lithium has gone up this year for the first time in the decade. So it would be time to increase circularity. The difficulty when you compare it to the digital transformation is that digital transformation was adopted faster, first by addressing customers. Sustainability and circularity, the difficulty to put it in place, and that also explains why it is so slow, is that you have to rethink completely your business model and your operating model and your supply chain. And that's exactly what the executive tells us. We recently did a report on circularity. And 70% of the executive we address tells us it's complicated. The reason why circularity is not enforced massively, scaled up, except at innovative companies like we see today. It's the scale of the transformation that is required. The lack of incentive, financially some company still sees that it takes more time to have a return investment on circularity project than traditional project. And the lack of skills and capability to implement those. The good news, if I may say so, is that we have more and more triggers to go toward more circularity. The first one is the sustainability imperative. We've had great examples of how using circular, using biomimicry principle, regenerative principle can reduce GHG emission. But it is also seen as for 50% of the executive we integrated as a source of cost reduction. And as well, there is a lot of innovation that enables circularity. Biotechnology, synthetic biology clearly is one of them. As well as the convergence between the physical world and the digital world. A lot of the circular economy principle were just principle and were not really easy to implement in the past beyond the burning waste to produce heat or energy. Now with the development, a lot of new technology and the fact that everything is connected, you are able to develop circularity. For instance, the emergence of platform that enable you to go toward more sharing economy. Instead of selling cars, you sell the access to a car. That's what we see with companies which are enabling car sharing, for instance. But as well as the traceability, which has been seen as a major issue to enable circularity. And we have now, somebody mentioned a cryptocurrency, but the technology behind it can also be used for traceability reasons and also to enable what is difficult today, which is the reverse logistic principle. So being able to trace your product down to their usage point, but also organize the new supply chain and gather them back to be reassembled, refurbished and reused. So technology is clearly a level and an innovation that will help us accelerate the move toward circular economy. That's interesting. Thank you, Florian. There is an interesting link to be made between the shift to circular economy and our ability to go faster on the energy transition. I believe you've done a recent survey for France that tells a lot around that. Can you give us a little bit more insight? Yes. So we worked with the French National Institute for Circular Economy and the ask was, given the constraints we have on resources due to the different crises that we discussed today, but also due to the ambitious target that we have to reach the decarbonization of our economy, is it sustainable? I mean, you mentioned the planetary boundaries. Clearly, we've been burning, I think, around 1.7 Earths in usage of material. If everybody was living like France or UK, that would be 2.6. So there's clearly a need to go toward more circularity. I think around 100 billion tons of material are used every year. So that's for almost five times more than during the period of the Clover from in 1972. So that's clearly not sustainable. And the study we did was to show how to enable the energy transition, leveraging circularity principle, which are avoid, reuse, replace, and refurbish. What we found is that applying all these levels would enable to unlock 70% of the need of material and minerals that are needed to produce the equipment that are required for the energy transition, like the solar panels, the batteries, the electric cars, etc. And that could lead to reducing, and that the figure is close to what you were saying, around 40% of the GIG emissions. So circular economy is not nice to have, I believe, in the journey toward energy transition and sustainability. It's really a must. But it means also changing the mindset and seeing beyond just recycling, but opening to new business models, such as share economy, and also going back to sustainable product design, so sinking a product right from the start that is not only performant, which is what the company has been doing for years, delivering a very performant product, but delivering a product that is resilient and then can be used in other value chains, in other industries. So circularity is part of the answer to enable faster energy transition, and on that affordability question, there is scarcity of some of these resources, but there is also a question, for instance, on hydrogen. Green hydrogen is very promising, but raises a huge question of affordability and cost. So Yusung, you've been giving some thought on that very precisely. Can you share them with us? Yeah, sure. I think the most important factor going forward to bring down hydrogen costs, so that they can be affordable to customers, is without doubt government subsidy. Hydrogen is an expensive fuel right now. The basic rationale behind the economics of hydrogen is that the costs will come down as producers of electrolyzers like Linde of Germany, Air product of France, and Siemens. As they build more, produce more electrolyzers, their production costs will come down. So this will drive the prices for hydrogen down along with lower renewable energy costs. But according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, currently in 2022, the cost of producing green hydrogen in Korea is $7.85. They forecast this price to come out, this cost to come down to $2.47 by 2030 and to $1.43 by 2050. But what I am concerned recently is that simply the demand for hydrogen is not growing as fast as we would like them to. In Korea, for example, the government's initial plan by the end of this year, 2022, was to have 67,000 hydrogen cars out in the market selling and running. As of the end of October of this year, that number was 27,870 cars. So only 43% of the target has been bet. So why is this? When you look at customer burden, I think that customers are very well subsidized when they buy their hydrogen cars. For example, the price of a Hyundai Nexo, which is the hydrogen car offered by Hyundai, the price tag is $57,000. And what the government does is that they provide around $26,000, which is around 46%. So customers can buy a Hyundai Nexo for $31,000. This is roughly the same as a mid-sized SUV that they sent to fate out in the market. So definitely customers are not losing by buying a hydrogen car in Korea. In terms of fuel costs, there is a de facto price cap on the price of hydrogen that is used to fuel the cars, which is at around $7 per kilogram. But if you want to compare the cost of hydrogen to diesel and gasoline, you have to compare it in terms of how many kilometers it's going to go, how much it costs for every kilometer that the car is running. So for hydrogen cars, the cost is 9.5 cents per kilometer. For gasoline, that's 11 cents. And for diesel, it's 10.6 cents. So in terms of fuel, customers there again are definitely having incentives to buy hydrogen cars. But in the end, customers, they complain, when we ask them, why aren't you buying more hydrogen cars? What they complain is about there's not enough fueling stations out there for them to refuel their cars. And if you ask hydrogen suppliers like Hyosung, we complain, hey, there's not enough vehicles out there for us to build more hydrogen stations. So this dilemma really becomes a classic question of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. If you look at the graph in the presentation on the screen, the average loss incurred by a single hydrogen station in 2021 was $76,000. The government covered around 61% of those costs, but that doesn't include the 50% depreciation costs for actually investing in the facilities. The government gives you money, 50% of the money that you need to build a hydrogen station, but they don't provide funding for the other 50%. So that is incurred as a cost to the hydrogen fuel stations. So if you factor in this depreciation cost, the coverage of government subsidy is only around 40%. So if you're losing money every year, I don't think businesses are going to build more hydrogen stations. So the basic rationale behind hydrogen is, as I mentioned, more demand, producing more electrolyzers, bringing down the cost. But if demand is not picking up as high as we would like, then do you think really the makers of electrolyzers, would they be producing more electrolyzers? No. And I think this is where I think the government has to really think about in what volumes do they want to subsidize the hydrogen industry. So definitely government funding is the most important factor between now and 2030 and 40 until the price of hydrogen really becomes affordable to customers. Thank you. Thank you. You assume because on the back of this illustration, very pragmatic and detailed illustration based on the I assume Korean market, it's clear that for the hydrogen, it's an entire value chain. In order for it to become retail, including up to the cars, source of affordable energy, it requires a lot of investments and not only subsidies for the end consumers. So that definitely calls for a question regarding, I'm turning to Andrew Brown. Regulation has an impact. We will see first it creates a momentum when it's mandatory it incentivize behaviors and there is that's one aspect of the coin. The other aspect is public policies can incentivize also with subsidies the use of this energy or the other and behaviors in general. How do you look at it from the OECD standpoint? Yes. So the OECD I think is a wonderful forum for our member countries to have conversation with one another to explore what has been working, what are the lessons learned from policies. And I think that there are three angles that we're taking a look at that are quite important. And the first being that there's not necessarily going to be one silver bullet which solves the circular economy problem. And so rather we're looking at a policy mix and how can you combine several policies to create the incentive such that the sustainable or the environmentally friendly choice is the one that's the most obvious choice. And so this begins by taking a look along the life cycle when we talk about products, they have impacts, environmental impacts from their extraction during their use all the way to the end of life. And so if you have just a singular focus on one of these parts you will miss the larger picture. And when we take a look as well we see there are opportunities, you mentioned regulation, regulation has a role in removing some of the most obviously hazardous elements of products to remove them from the market to make sure that they're not creating problems as well with design when we know a particular design makes sense this can have a particular role. Then there are price based mechanisms such as subsidies or taxes to make that choice the obvious choice. As well at the OECD we have been looking at extended producer responsibility for over 30 years. This is taking a look at making producers responsible for the post-consumer or the post-use stage of the life cycle to incentivize better design choices. Then we talk about another angle for policy that we've looked at is around geography. So with circular economy I think that the average citizen may have their first interaction with circular economy with the public sector in terms of their municipality that it's often the municipalities that are doing recycling systems. And so this starts at a very local stage but also there are domestic at the national level as well as at international level that are quite important for making policies for circular economy. So you mentioned that there was the biodiversity this angle is there's the meeting happening with the Convention on Biological Diversity this week last week it was plastics so having an international focus is going to be critical. When we talk about plastics we ran two different scenarios of our macroeconomic model and determined that it would require an internationally focused policy to really move us towards where we want to be with the capture of plastic waste and the recycling levels that we seek. And then the last bit that I'll mention is around justice I think that this has been something that has been lacking in previous discussion around environmental policy but when we talk about this at a national level this can mean providing for underserved previously underserved communities making sure that we're contacting them and involving them in the policy making process. Also at an international level you have to make sure that when we're building these new economic systems that they're just if they're not just they're not really sustainable. And when we talk about plastics one example here we could bring in is around the OECD we did a study on the cost of capturing all plastic waste to making sure that this was no longer leaking to the environment. When we looked at the least developed countries there was a cost saving at having a circular policy ambition as compared to a linear policy approach. So there are opportunities when we look at an internationally just system as well that this can make sense financially as well. Interesting so that's a very comprehensive approach to the cycle and that leads me to turn to our friends from startups because very often definitely when we hear how promising your solutions are we can't wait to have them scale in terms of production and adopted widely. So what do you see I'm turning to you Livia what do you see if you had a wish list do you see any regulatory feature that could help you on that path? If you had asked only what is my wish list I would say just money we just need more money but on regulations. I like what Tia he said in the morning if I understood correctly he said realism at short term and idealism in the long term. So in the short term I hope that's what he said forgive me if not for my oh it was good. So for us it's also kind of around the way the regulations are so we are trying to implement a new technology in an industry that has been around for 2,000 years of a technology that has been around for what 20 years 30 years so we are talking about a time frame of 1% so it takes time and it should take time because what we want is that our infrastructure it's very safe first and foremost a safety of everybody involved but right now to implement a new technology on a construction and we have a case working with a company in the UK as well it takes time we need a deviation from standard and it take departure from standard sorry and it can take from a few weeks all the way to a couple of years so I think what we are doing right now it's to liaising with organs in the UK that are responsible for the standardization of our products but in the long term the vision that we have is that the codes can be changed to consider that technology and there are other self-healing cementitious materials company there up and running and what I envision in a way is that in maybe 10 years or 20 years you're going to see the changes in the Eurocode and it's going to say well using traditional cement that's the amount that's the guideline for it using self-healing cementitious materials that's the guideline for it and I think that's going to speed up our process quite a lot so prescriptive prescriptive regulation you would call for Bruno on your side is the list that Andrew shared with us exhaustive or are you suggesting something else it's very exhaustive what Andrew shared with us and Florence as well it's it's quite comprehensive to move to circularity for me what is important if I may say is that we square the circle so we have several issues everywhere we need industrial strengths we need investment into biotechnology which is also close the chemical sector at the level that we see in the pharmaceutical industry for instance you you are amazed because health is such a problem but the waste we are generating also causes causing health problems so we need to invest in this in this industry we need to have access to the feedstock which is the the waste the quality and and this access so we need to develop a collection and sorting and just move away from the incineration and the landfilling which is not what we should be doing we need to put the asset at scales and so there is also an investment needed we need to accelerate and the chemical sector will need some money to invest in these things and we need also customer commitments and here is probably where the regulatory pressure can help or incentivize and for me what is interesting is that today you have in some countries like in China you cannot use waste to make food grade contact material but you can use oil and I doubt that anyone in this room will drink a little bit of oil and feel safe so why a dirty material like oil which contains a lot of nasty chemicals even radioactive material can be used to make food grade contacts where our waste which are not clean but can be very clean when you go swim through these kind of technologies cannot be used to make food grade contacts so you have a lot of roadblocks that are being built even circulating the waste from one country to the next country just to use them and reuse them is quite difficult so regulatory need to build a policy around what we are generating not using in the proper way to enable and to facilitate the use of this waste and for the customer for the consumer of course there is some education our waste our resources are not anymore something that we saw away without taking care of where they are ending up including in the ocean so yeah it very interesting to definitely looking at waste in a different way a change of paradigm down to regulation is also needed to allow for circular economy to to become mainstream so before opening to question I I think that the spirit of this session was to share with you a little bit of the positive spin that we feel when we look at innovative promising solutions and and that they go hand in hand with regulation regulation shouldn't lag behind because we will see that adoption can be hindered if there is a lag behind in the perception in the taxonomy in the alignments and not only in the reporting so all this needs to work in parallel for energy transition to to move faster than what we've seen up to now and and if we want to reach the net zero by 2050 thank you and now we are I suggest we open to a few questions from the room I know we're late but I am I am a sheet from Israel I enjoy to listen to you it's very encouraging to see that really there is a chance to change the situation of the world in the future I'm glad also as well that it's funny that the president of Brazil had lost the election because now maybe they will stop the destroying of the amazon forest which contribute a lot to the quality of life I wonder if you hear about some of the some of the methods that now are checked in israel by high-tech people they think that it is possible maybe to develop things that will absorb the carbon from the air I don't know how and how in which way but they think about some kind of way that they can really absorb the carbon from the air and by that they will reduce strongly the situation will change the situation for best I am I'm wondering if you heard heard about it or you know something about it thank you yeah very quickly because it can be a very long conversation about director capture technologies but we have a company in the west coast and they're working on project like that which is basically biomimicry and copying nature and by using material that have the ability to transform and to capture carbon out of the air so yeah there's a lot of innovations that feel it's in early stage of I'd say science but it's there's a lot of investment in this stage yeah um just to make a comment that as a brazilian I'm very happy that lula won as well and that we have a little bit more chance with the amazon forest and um and it's interesting when you go to meetings about cement producers in the uk and they are mainly talking about the possibility of carbon capture and that's very fundamental for that industry as well yeah I I know that there are some technologies out there but there is a lot to be developed still on that front as well Bruno you wanted to add something yeah I just wanted to add one comment which is general to what to everything we are developing here is that even if you look at new technology you still need to produce materials to make those technology efficient so this kind of huge vacuum cleaner that can capture CO2 will use a lot of minerals to be built this kind of ceramics or their likes from what I've learned about these technologies and we still have the issue of the raw materials we need to be more circular because to build those huge materials use vacuum cleaner we still have the issue of what we do with the waste we are generating today so we need to address the circularity reduce our consumptions of all materials and those ceramics they need to be mined it's a lot of issues also when you are mining the ground our iphone so our telephones if you are a samsung lover they they weigh only 500 grams but actually if you are carrying them with what the waste you have generating there will be tens of kilos absolutely thank you for this fascinating panel I love in particular the biometrics idea very inspiring that nature can teach us how to protect nature question is the following I see you combine some regulations some incentives there's a need for money but I was thinking why not find a circular funding mechanism by that I mean making sure really what you just said that those produce materials that's going to generate a lot of waste pay for it so including the price of goods the price of waste ultimately so the what we call in the past the externally negative so this is something I'd like to have your views on how can we create a self funding mechanism where the mainstream funds the future okay I'll be happy to answer that so I tried to touch on that just a bit this I would call extended producer responsibility so in the OECD our definition of this is taking the post-use stage and making the producer either financially or physically in some cases responsible for this and so we have a quite a wide definition of which policies fall into this overall approach but you could think of deposit refund systems you could think of take back requirements on the producers you could think of financial obligations at the point of production and then we would call this an advanced disposal fee and that these are used quite extensively throughout the OECD I think we have just about all of our members have something in the form of a packaging EPR at the moment but we're also taking a look at how this can be applied to additional product sectors so plastics beyond packaging we're also considering construction food production and waste and seeing is this something that could be applied to more than just the traditional packaging application and as well we're looking at what possibility could be done to address more of the environmental impacts as they occur throughout the life cycle and including this within the producer's realm of responsibility so this is definitely something that we are looking at thank you for the question Bruno do you you raise your hand did you have any addition to make yes I think Andrew summarizes pretty well the EPR the extended responsibility for the producer is one way of collecting money and if it's done cleverly so for instance you put more money to be taxed when you put a material which is difficult to produce which is producing a lot of CO2 and very difficult to recycle then you are generating extra revenue and force the people to be more clever in their design of products wonderful so with this I've seen big signs saying that we needed to stop because I think we're late on schedule in the afternoon we thank you all for your time and your attention and we definitely can continue the discussion over lunch breakfast and and in the next days thank you thank you all thank you thank you