 We have about nine plants around the world making LC3 today and we know there's about 20 or 30 coming on stream in the next two to three years. But of course we want to take this further, we want to see a hundred, maybe a thousand plants producing LC3 because there we can get the really massive CO2 reductions worldwide. There's a solution which is totally scalable, you could adopt it in just about every cement plant, I mean practically maybe 70% of cement plants and you can do it quite fast because it depends on existing equipment for manufacture. The main problem in the industry is inertia. You know, a cement plant is working 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 340 days a year and in that situation people don't want to change anything. They don't want to look left or right, they just want to keep producing what they're producing today. So it takes an incredible amount of effort to persuade people this is important. When you look to the global south there's certainly more than one billion people living in what we call slum conditions, populations still growing, people are moving to cities and we need to provide these people decent living conditions. Plus for an essential part of development is infrastructure, we need decent roads and railways to move things around and this all takes concrete. People often talk about things like wood but today wood is just this very small amount of building materials and that's already not sustainable on a worldwide basis. We're cutting down more trees than we're planting, there's nothing wrong with wood, it's a great material but we simply haven't got enough of it to make any substantial impact on how much concrete we use. We have to think about using concrete more efficiently rather than this illusion that we can replace it with something else. Techno pessimism which becomes almost a mantra that the technology is bad, the firms are bad and they're out to get us is really, really quite unhelpful. It's almost as unhelpful as a starry eyed utopianism. We actually live in a space where we require critical reflection, a kind of pragmatic optimism about these technologies, a recognition that there will be benefits and disbenefits and we have to engage to control and maintain those. If people on both sides of this gulf of incomprehension the tools to understand what the processes are and what the risks are and what questions they should ask of the world around them. Technology is power and we have ways of dealing with power, we understand its benefits in society and we also understand what happens when any institution gets too much power. In order to do that you need checks and balances, you need a balance of power, you need rival power centres that can hold one another to account and you might need some enforceable guardrails. We're in an interesting time that I call the exponential age. It's the exponential age because there's a series of technologies that are getting cheaper and cheaper every year on a compounding basis. And today in the start of the 21st century we see that computing is on that curve, things like memory storage on that curve but so too are lithium ion batteries, solar photovoltaics and a whole series of technologies from the bio economy like precision fermentation or genome sequencing. Now what that means is the technologies get better or to look at it a different way, they get much much cheaper. As they get much cheaper they're much more likely to be bought by businesses and consumers put to use in industry and start to change the shape of industries. The gulf of mutual incomprehension is what emerges between the technologists and those who understand how the technologies are behaving and really the rest of us who are living in a more everyday world on the side of the typical person in society. The incomprehension arises from not realising quite how quickly the technology might change, how quickly it might diffuse. And I think quite often what is very very hard is what those unintended and emergent consequences of the technologies end up being. Today, things that happen in the natural world can be the sources of security crises and they can go from small triggers to big effects very very quickly. Historically, we have these kind of two communities. We have a community that thinks about international peace and security and they maintain the force of arms and the resources to ensure a durable peace among nations. And we have people who are thinking about the natural world, scientists and conservationists and people who are thinking about climate change. And they're really two different kinds of cultures, they're different kinds of people and that means we need to create bridges between the national security world and the natural security world. And those bridges are bridges of culture and shared understanding because you know you can't shoot a missile at climate change, you can't invade a sandstorm. If you create an environment where people are hungry, suddenly they become restless so they begin to move and then you have migration changes. And those migration changes can show up in complicated ways geopolitically and they can be sources of stress and tension and change. So everything is connected to everything else. You take the same disaster, the same disruption and whether it's an earthquake or a typhoon exacerbated by climate change or whether it's a food shock to the food security system and it's just going to have a much bigger effect in 2025 than the exact same problem would have had in 1950. A solvable problem yesterday becomes a major global crisis tomorrow. One of the most powerful tools we can use is to use instruments in space. They let us see every active deforestation, the growth or the lack of growth of every crop in every field around the world. They let us see disruptions to global supply chains and they also allow us to see when malevolent actors often abuse the rights of their fellow citizens. And so whether that's watching governments burn villages after they've kicked people out of their communities or whether it's connecting information that we see from space to mobile phone records to patterns of change on the ground that allow us to attribute actions to specific actors.