 Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening. My name is Emma Scott-Christensen, and it's my pleasure to welcome you to the Accelerating the Race to Zero Emission Shipping session on behalf of the World Economic Forum and the Race to Zero Dialogues. We have an exciting hour ahead of us. We'll be exploring shipping decarbonisation with expert speakers. This is an interactive session. And therefore, you've just, before I took over your screen, seen the Slido screen, which showed you exactly how you can ask questions to our expert speakers. So why is shipping decarbonisation so important? Well, shipping carries up to 90% of global trade. It accounts for 3% of global emission. And if shipping was a country, it would be the sixth largest emitter in the world. And if we do not decarbonise the sector, we can see that number triple by 2050. So more than 1,000 companies have committed to science-based targets on climate. Meanwhile, there's a growing wish from a consumer perspective to buy sustainably, to participate in reducing the scary realities of climate change. In order to fulfil those wishes, it will be necessary to decarbonise entire supply chains. And that includes shipping. Decarbonising shipping is not an easy task. It's safe to say that we must act quickly. Decarbonising shipping requires collaboration across the value chain, including investment and enabling regulation from our governments and policymakers. Our conversation today will be hosted by Bronwyn Nilsson. Before I hand over to her, it's my pleasure to give the floor to the International Maritime Organization's Secretary-General, Kitak Lim, for opening remarks. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, today economies are ever more interdependent and natural resources are under increasing pressure. The transition of maritime sector toward a more sustainable future has never been more important, no more opportune. As we come from the COVID-19 pandemic, we must force a sustainable recovery in which combating climate change is a paramount. IMO has adopted initial strategies to reduce GHZ emissions from ships. The specific goal is to reduce the total annual GHZ emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008, which is a significant reduction in carbon intensity for individual ships over over 80%. At the same time, IMO is pursuing efforts to phase out GHZ emissions from shipping entirely as soon as possible within this century. As a first step to achieve these ambitious goals, we are expected to adopt a major to meaningfully reduce ship's carbon intensity. These measures will drive innovation and design for energy efficiency and also provide essential building blocks for future emission reduction measures. But we need to go further. To reach a general carbon future for shipping, we will need new technologies, new fuels, and innovation. Decarbonization will only be possible with the targeted investment and the strategic partnership, which also address the needs of developing countries. Exciting research and development into general carbon marine fuels is underway. Renewable hydrogen or ammonia, for example. But the more action is needed to speed up this process. And this means huge investment in R&D and the infrastructure. To achieve this, IMO is stepping up each effort to act as a global forum and promote R&D in low and general carbon marine fuels, bringing together interested stakeholders from public and private sectors, private and development parents, and other donors. In parallel, IMO will embark on innovative emission reduction mechanism to incentivize the update of alternative renewable fuels. We want to ensure that no country is left behind in this energy transition. IMO continues to lead the way with the portfolio of a continuous expanding technical cooperation and capacity building project. IMO's GHG strategy has sent a clear signal that now is the time to start developing vessel fuels or other necessary infrastructure to support general emission of shipping. The route to general carbon shipping will not be easy, but I'm hopeful that the range of initiatives I have highlighted will lead the way. Many times trade is a fighter to the global economy. We must all work together to enable sustainable post-pandemic recovery and ensure that shipping has truly sustainable, decarbonized future. Well, those opening remarks from Kitak Lim, who is the Secretary-General of the IMO, really establishing that the road isn't going to be easy, but it does have to be done. And that, of course, is accelerating the race to zero emissions in the shipping industry specifically. Kitak Lim, they're talking to new technologies, new fuels, new innovations, and central to that theme is, of course, the collaboration between the public and the private sector. Those are all issues that we're going to examine as we move deeper into the session. Right now I'm going to call on my panelists. We promised you a number of experts in this arena to debate the extent to which we can accelerate the race to zero emissions in the shipping industry. And we're going to start with the structure where my panelists will come forward with interventions, three minutes at a time, and then we will embark on a panel discussion where I will be fielding questions from the floor. Please, again, as Emma mentioned, utilizing the Slido application, you can log into Slido and use the hashtag race to zero, or you can scan the QR card with your smart device. So we really want that interaction. And of course, you have the ability to put key questions to the experts on the panel. On that note, I have got Randy Chen, who is vice chairman of One High Lines. He's also co-chair of Getting to Zero Coalition First Move Workstream. We will be joined also by Veronica Scotty. She is the chairperson of the Public Sector Solutions at Swiss Rea. And Rasmus Bach-Nielsen is a global head fuel decarbonization. And he is vice chair of the Sea Charter. And that is, of course, we will chat to him a little later in the conversation. We're going to start with the first intervention. The Sea Cargo Charter is the correct terminology there. Our first intervention is going to come from Randy Chen. So Randy, stage is yours. Thank you, Bronwyn. And thank you to the World Economic Forum for putting this panel together and giving me an opportunity to talk about the Getting to Zero Coalition and its efforts to tackle the climate crisis that we face today. As some of you may know, the Gold Maritime Forum is an organization of maritime industry stakeholders who have come together regularly to solve very long-durated problems in shipping. So such long-term and problems include or not limited to things like digitalization, attracting talent, safety, but also decarbonization. And then within the GMF, or the Gold Maritime Forum and in partnership with the World Economic Forum and Friends of Ocean Action, the Getting to Zero Coalition is a group of willing stakeholders, both public and private sector actors who are actively pursuing ways to expedite the pathway to a decarbonized future. But instead of just talking about actions, the Coalition has done a couple of things. Most recently, it's produced the First Wave, which is literally a blueprint that was crafted with the Energy Transitions Commission that was released to the public two hours ago. And this blueprint outlines exactly what needs to happen so that the shipping industry can fulfill its goals set out by the UN and the IML. So that's basically what the organization and group of stakeholders that I represent. Great. Randy, thank you very much for that. I'm going to ask Veronica Scotty. Again, just your introduction there. Veronica as Chairperson, Public Sector Solutions at Switzerland. Your intervention. And thanks everyone for offering some first insights from an insurance perspective. So I don't know how many in the audience are actually aware that the maritime insurance is the first form of insurance. It goes back to Greek and Roman times. And I'm using a little bit of walking history to really help us ground why we're having this discussion today, which is so important, also for the future. At that time, maritime insurance came in the form of loans that were given to the shipbuilders for taking the cargo around. And these loans were offered by the time pseudo bankers. And effectively, by looking at the kind of payrolls that the voyage would encounter, the price would change based on the nature of the ship, based on the nature of the payrolls based on the route. I think that's really interesting because we heard also from M&M 4, 90%, even if the world has moved on, we come through massive ways of industrialization. We're still looking at an industry, the international trade industry, that so heavily relies on the well functioning of the maritime sector. And yet it's a sector that, while it maintains this fundamental value for economy, has undergone little change compared to others. And now it's facing a meltdown of changes from its productivity to its engineering to the type of fuels, as we heard, that need to be adapted for the sector to actually meet its ambition for the net zero race. So I think it is very, very important that we look at ways as an insurance industry to partner up because in this meltdown, it really will take a lot of nerves, nerves of steel, of the captain's type of attitude in ensuring that we are looking at the risks that are associated with this transition. And we really leave, if you will, the spirit that was there already 1,000 years ago, that intracranural spirit. But it won't be easy. And I'm happy to go more into the details of what the industry could be doing going forward. It's not doing yet and why we are facing some obstacles. Thanks. We're certainly going to drill into more of the role of the insurance industry in this ecosystem. But right now, I'm going to get Rasmus Bach-Nielsen, again, global head, fuel decarbonisation at Traffic Euro and his vice-chair of the C-Cargo Charter to come in with his initial intervention. Thank you very much, Bronwyn. And thank you very much to the World Economic Forum for hosting this session, which is a super important session and forum to participate in. Just very briefly about Traffic World, to understand the context why we're here. Traffic World is one of the biggest commodities traders in the world. We trade 6 million barrels of oil per day. We are the second biggest mess of some minerals trader, the base that indeed trader in the world. Earlier this year, we were trading one of the biggest tanker fleets in the world, with more, controlling more than 200 tankers. We have a very significant charter, chartering more than 4,000 ships per annum. So we have a big role within the carbon transportation sector. One of our big challenges, and we believe this is a big challenge for the whole industry, is we cannot decarbonise fast enough. There is a historical challenge. The world is changing and we don't have the tools at the moment to reduce emissions fast enough. So what have we done from a Traffic World point of view? We go a little bit back in time. We initiated a significant fuels of the future study with the Texas A&M University, with a large number of PhD professors. It's a huge energy endowment university that's very strong in this space. In due to this year, we came to the conclusion that the fuels of the future are hydrogen based. So we're dealing with either green ammonia or green methanol. Those are the two fuels which we deem are the ones which carry the future. And those are the ones that can actually adhere to a zero carbon world, predominantly actually the green ammonia fuel. So what have we done when we came in with that knowledge that these fuels are the future? We have worked on a very significant white paper which we publicized in September and which the World Financial Press has covered, including Financial Times, Bloomberg, Reuters, World Economic Forum, et cetera. We have come up with a comprehensive IMO-led shipping decarbonisation proportion. In the proposal there are three elements and I'll very briefly talk about them. The one key element is a CO2 profiling of all transportation fuels. We want a benchmark to be established on a full life cycle assessment basis. So you get the full carbon footprint from the whole journey from well to propeller. This is not done within the industry today, whether separation from tank to propeller or well to propeller. We believe and we believe many people in the street believe in this, that we need a well to propeller assessment. But we have proposed that IMO goes in and brings a carbon levy on fuels which are emitting more than the benchmark fuel. What that means is that you can have the industry fixing its own problems as in the fact that when you bring a levy in on fuels emitting more than the benchmark, there will be a pool of funds and a significant pool of funds established that then can go and bring subsidies into the lower zero carbon fuels. So we're not asking for government around the world to pay the bill for shipping to decarbonise. We're saying the industry can pay for its own bill but we need clear and strict and strong and possible regulation to happen. And IMO is the only place where this can happen. We're also saying that charters, this is now Travegura as one of them should be paying the bills. So when we charter ships emitting more than the YouTube emissions profile, the charters should be paying for that extra emissions. So again, we're not putting the bills on others. We're keeping the bill within the industry and what it will do, it will drive a behavioral change and the driving of the behavioral change will force change, yeah? So two other elements, and I can talk a lot but I have just a little bit of time, two other elements in our passive fee-weight proposal is support for R&D, which Kitaglim also talks about and support to small island states who will be penalised on increased transportation costs, significant increased transportation costs. There's two elements today and then I leave the word back to you, Bronwyn, I know time is short, that we need to establish, the thing is Kitaglim says we need significant investments. Significant investments needs long-term off-takes. Long-term off-takes cannot happen if regulation is not clear and enforceable. So we need to start at the IMO and member states need to make up their own mind, how ambitious are you? I'm telling you, the industry's behind you, we are telling that to all the IMO member states. We are part of many discussions where people are really waking up to the new reality and it's important to say that past decision-making processes will not establish precedence for the future. The world has changed and just one last comment which is we now have to, probably the world probably has support from a new wind blowing from across the Atlantic where the new presidency is saying that they want to lead the world to log in an enforceable international agreement to reduce emissions in shipping. This is very, very positive and hopefully, and we are full of belief that the transition can happen very soon and we believe it should happen already at the next MEPC 76 meeting, which is not the next but this is the following, the next one, it can happen, that's the message. Technology is there, the industry's ready. Rasmus, thank you very much and I want to pick up on what you said is that the industry can pick up their own bill because I think this is really important and Randy, I'm going to come back to you on that note because we know public-private partnerships are incredibly important. With the industry picking up the bill, as Rasmus puts it, it is about the regulatory aspects that will be left to the governments, to the public sector, getting that to tie in is absolutely crucial. Do you think that we have the political will across the public sector to create this enabling environment where the industry in the shipping industry effectively would pick up this bill, which for me is a very attractive proposition. I do think that there is, as Rasmus put it, a growing awareness of the urgency of the problem and there is a need that both, this is why I say that both the private sector and the public sector is trying to come up with a solution that makes sense for everyone. When you talk about clear regulations, I think no one in our industry would dispute that. So whether, again, regulations come in two forms, they can come in forms of incentives and they come in forms of disincentives. And one of the things that happened very recently in shipping was this transition to low sulfur fuels that took place in January of this year. When it was clearly written exactly when it was supposed to happen, the standard did move from high-heavy fuel oil that has sulfur content at 3.5% to now global standard is 0.5%. And of course there are some regions that have pushed an even more aggressive, like lower sulfur content. So that was very good because we're able to essentially pass on the cost of this very expensive migration to cleaner, relatively cleaner fuels, in some cases up to $300 per tonne as it was estimated at the time, to the customer at the right time. But the problem is there are other elements of that regulation that wasn't very well written and it allowed for not necessarily a loophole but alternative ways to be compliant. And those methods which essentially are the use of scrubbers did not necessarily help the industry achieve what they're supposed to achieve, which is once again, a cleaner use of the cleaner fuel. Decarbonized fuels is much more complex. As Rasmus put it, we're looking at several alternatives whether it be green biofuels or green ammonia, but there's even more elements of complexity because we're not the only industry that's gonna be looking at these alternatives. Green biofuels are things that to be honest would keep planes flying in the air because they have the proper intensity to do so. And if you just kind of grow fields of methanol and other types of biofuels that doesn't actually achieve an end-to-end green solution for the industry. So when we talk about these elements that's not so, I understand it seems very straightforward in some cases, but it really means that there needs to be a very healthy dialogue where the private sector is saying these are the things that are very realistic that we can fulfill. No matter what the paradigm is or the system is that acts as the proper again, incentives and disincentives. And also along the timeline that would help us fulfill our goals to get to a decarbonized future. This timeline we're gonna debate at length, but before we go there, just a question coming through from our audience. So clarity required, the IMO strategy only considers alternative fuels potentially in the midterm. So that's after 2023 with implementation from 2030. Is that correct? And is that fast enough? Let me come to Rasmus on that. Randy, I don't know if you want to add after Rasmus has come in. Rasmus? Yes, I'm here. Okay, sorry, I thought you were asking Randy. No, listen, no, it's not fast enough. The world is changing so rapidly at the moment that there has to be a reassessment of how fast things needs to happen. A good evidence of why it's not happening fast enough. If you look at the share prices, which obviously is the world and the financial world dictating what they want to own with share prices on oil majors is hitting 25 year lows. Shipping companies, except for the line of companies have had a very hard time this year, although some markets has been historically strong. So there's some evidence from the investor world that they're not interested owning this infrastructure. So it's a very clear evidence that there will be a lot of support from CEOs within the companies that change has to happen faster. For Travegore as well, change has to happen faster because we just can't decarbonize fast enough in a year like this one where our business activities are, our CO2 emissions from shipping is also up and that's not satisfying. And other companies who grow the activity, they will have the same challenges. So things needs to change and the pace has to change. And the good thing is, technology is ready. So if you look, and this is of course a very important practical aspect of the changes that we are headed towards, there will be main engines, which obviously is the key element in the ships that are ready for green ammonia propulsion by 24. This is 97% certain. So it means that the majority of the trading fleet today, whether it's dry cargo or containers or tankers, as an example, they can retrofit themselves into green ammonia by 2025. So we have the technical solution ready, but we need the regulatory framework to be there to support it because the financials today and in our proposal, we have a carbon level of $250 to $300 per metric tons if you sail on green ammonia is required. So again, no company can afford to go and buy the fuels. You need regulatory regime to be there. I am coming to you Veronica in just a moment, but I want Randy to close out on this timing issue and to just add his voice to that passionate plea from Rasmus, which is we need to move a lot faster. And we've got to pick up the pace dramatically. Randy. Yeah, I definitely agree that we should be making our best effort to move faster. And the reason for that is literally ships are capital intensive assets that are traded over a 20 year lifespan. So that means that as we're pointing out, a substantive portion of the world's fleet needs to be fueled by non-carbon based means by 2030. We agree with that. I somewhat disagree with the idea that by 2025, just because green ammonia is available that you can basically retrofit the entire fleet. That's not necessarily true because a significant amount of the world's fleet is not equipped with the main engines that can be properly retrofitted to these alternative fuels. Retrofitting an engine involves bench testing and doing things quite honestly, they're very technical that involve significant investment. And so I agree that if we can capture essentially the value within the industry, basically if you're assessing a levy that the industry is paying for and that levy is going back towards reinvesting, again, in commercializing, expediting, all these different things that need to happen both on ships that are trading over water, but also on shore. Green ammonia requires a completely new supply chain. It's not that you just go to the same bunkering stations because again, the fuel intensity level is different from what we're using today. So that means we're setting up significantly more bunkering stations across the globe, which again, that can include a lot of other economies as opposed to the ones that are traditional shipping centers today. But I must emphasize that, yes, there is a pathway. I just want to make sure that it's not something that's going to happen overnight just because, yes, technically the technology is there. So... I can see Rossimus is wanting to come back in here, but Veronica, before I come back, Rossimus, we're going to hold that point. I do just want to get, because obviously this is a collaborative effort and the insurance industry has a significant role to play. So Veronica, let's get your voice into the system here, into why the insurance industry as a whole is so important when it comes to this race to zero emissions specifically in the shipping industry. Thanks, and I hope my comments can really build on what both Randy and Rossimus have said. So I'm going to use my company as an example, but it's really not limited to Swiss, you know, the stickholder capitalism viewpoint is something that the industry buying large, at least those I deal with very much embrace. So let me give you a quick overview of why, you know, we can be part of that discussion around the incentives and disincentives, and also thinking in a system framework. There are three ways that insurers can make a difference to any decarbonization efforts, and then I'll go into the detail if you allow me, specifically for the maritime industry. First of all, obviously we take on the riding risk. We assess the risk and then we take it on our balance sheet. And for that, we have a framework as a company that is steeped in our group sustainability practices. So we look at the low impacts, the high impact type of intervention, that can be both positive and negative. And we would apply it also in the context of old risks that are around the maritime and transport industry. So that's something that we've been doing for many years. And there are initiatives at industry level. So what we call the insurance SDGs that we launched this year, it's not just Swiss free, but we will come up with charters of how to do that across all sectors. So you're gonna find ever more educated partners in insurers that are really looking and how do we steer our risk bearing capital every time we take this risk. Veronica, just before, I just wanna come to that element because Randy, in fact, it was Rasmus mentioning the incentives and the disincentives also Randy coming in with that. Can't the insurance industry play a key role here? You know, when it comes to those insurance bills, there is avenue. I'll come to that in a second. I'll finish, I'll say two things very briefly and then I'll go specifically in that point because I think it's where we played the biggest role for the maritime industry. But the second thing we do is to invest. And you won't find insurance companies investing necessarily in the assets that Randy spoke about, but absolutely we do look like any financial investors as to the lifetime of the asset. And we will look at whether it's gonna get stranded or not. So I think I just wanted to endorse its point that the financial community is looking for a way of investing that is considering the climate change. And specifically as an insurance industry, we've been at this for the last 30 years. We've probably educated us to the importance of decarbonization. And finally, we change our own footprint. So I have great empathy with Rasmus and everyone else about, you know, how do we get to the 2030? We're Chinese as a company and we're members of the Global Maritime Forum. So we are committed to that decarbonization. Now, to your point, I absolutely see the biggest role that we can play is in the degree scheme capacity. And it is about supporting innovation that is allowing the industry to decarbonize whether it is fuel and bunkering of the fuel. So I'm very happy Randy mentions that because it's not just we have the fuel, but how do you store it? How does that change the risk on the grounds, on the ship during transport? That fuel needs different engines. So the engines need to be fit for insurability. And it changes the vessels. You can't just run the fuel in the old vessels. So I think that's the conversation we were having through four minutes ago. And to store it on the ship, and I'm not a, you know, I don't build, I'm not a ship builder, you know, I'm an economist, but I understand that the engineering is different. So that means that the payload for the ship changes, the economics of transporting things from one place to the others may change. And all of that needs to be reflected because that's how we actually price the risk as well. And so that is also important. And then the infrastructure reports will change. So it's not, if we just drill then into the fuel aspect because I only have two minutes, right? On the new and, you know, lower carbon footprint. I think Randy was very honest, you know, we're gonna get to a lower carbon footprint, but we may not get necessarily to zero. And so we just have to be aware where the technology can take us all far. But I think it's paramountly important that we actually look at accelerating the commercialization and the industrialization of that production. Now there are two incentives, and then I wrap it up with France. There are- The incentives are very important. We wanna hear about those in St. James. Thank you, thank you. I just want to, you know, give the perspective. There are two things we can do and we do it across various industries. That's why the framework that I described before matters. One is the carrot and one is the stick. So let me start with the stick and then we end on the carrot on a more positive note. The stick is that feeling everything else, we will direct away both our investment and our risk-bearing capital from high-polluting segments of the industry. I think it is very obvious we've done it elsewhere and it's gonna happen in the maritime industry as well. So we cannot continue to support as a choice, as a commercial choice, we will not continue to support the biggest offenders, those that are not taking actions, those that are not actually trying to reduce meaningfully their carbon footprint. So that should make Rasmus happy, right? So that is a corporate intent, but there isn't an industry alignment around that. And so, and how can we do, how can we actually support that transition? Now to the carrot, I actually think we need to look at ways as we better understand the technology, the engineering, as we better understand how we can mainstream these activities. I think we can direct much more massively risk-bearing capital to those innovations so that they actually receive the support that they need in a commercial setting. It is, so I completely agree with the view that we need a collaboration with the public sector and the regulation is fundamental here and that by creating the induced policies we can accelerate that. But I think we can have the dialogue and we should have a more active dialogue as insurance industry in understanding and keeping pace with these elements of innovation so that we can do what we used to do from the very beginning of the maritime industry. And I think if you allow me, I would just want to add one area where we have not spoken about so far, but I think it's truly important Emma commented in her opening remarks. Another thing that we do and we are avid users of is data. And when I look at the way we ensure today is very backward-looking, is very aggregated, is very intransparent. My hope is that as we look at the ways of creating transparency and redesigning the future of the industry, respecting its fundamental economic mandate, right, development mandate, that we actually look at two things, better monitoring of the performance of the maritime industry so that see through and having data and digitalization. Secondly, I would hope that by having that transparency, we can move from pure pavement of losses exposed to actually much better loss prevention ex ante. And that is important for all of us because my company, the insurance industry at large, the financial industry has taken commitments to actually create a see through between all of our activities. So as we support ship owners, we support ports, et cetera, we have commitments vis-a-vis, say, the logistics companies. We have the... Veronica, I want to, I'm gonna come back because I think you bring a very, very important point to the table, and that is the measurability element as Henry Ford famous... And transparency. And transparency, you know, if you cannot measure something, you cannot manage something. So let's come back, that data is critical. Rasmus is just about to jump out of his chair because he is still on the element of timing and he wants to rebut Randy, who is saying, listen, hang on, this is a big industry. There's a lot of capex here. This is not gonna happen overnight. Rasmus, you're saying we can move quicker. You're correct. Thank you. And Veronica, you bring a very important topic so I get to you as well. We start with the feedback on Randy's comment and Randy's right. No, the industry cannot go and retrofit the world fleet in one year, not in two years, not in five years. So I mean, in full agreement, or we're in full agreement with Randy, the fact is if you have the carbon levy, you know, as you retrofit your ship, you will have the subsidy on the new fuels. And that's the key, I think. It will take many years, but obviously it's a transition. The fact is you need the regulation to be there. So when you're an owner, when you do retrofit your ship, you know you will be competing on an equal level playing field with the high emitting fuels. So just to clarify that point. Veronica, you bring up some very interesting and important points, yeah? Data, okay. So as you move into a transparent regulatory framework, you need to understand how much fuel have the owners burned when transporting cargo from A to B. Here at the Global Maritime Forum, which for outsiders that's sort of known as the shipping divorce, yeah? The industry leaders that Randy talked about in his introduction, in October at the annual GMF, we introduced the C-Cargo Charter. The C-Cargo Charter is for the whole industry to sign up to how you report your emissions when transporting cargo. So we are establishing a new industry benchmark on reporting. Obviously, that fits very, very well with your data owning comments. The challenge the industry have today or one of many, yeah, is the fact that owners, they haven't had the requirement to report emissions and neither the charters, including us, yeah? So this framework around the C-Cargo Charter, which we urge all ship owners and charters to sign up on, sign up to, is really, it's a mandatory reporting that you report when you last had a discharge from load to discharge. So there comes how much fuel have you actually burned? And that will also make it easier when you have a carbon living, I say when, not if, because it has to happen, yeah? Well, then you know exactly, well, that this framework is established, the data is there, yeah? And this will evolve over the next three to five years and the data will over time become very reliable, very important. Point number two to you, Veronica, around infrastructure and insurance, and you implied to that as well, Randy. About the engine principles. So today, most transfer vessels on dry carbon, the tanker space and the gas is built on the two stroke diesel principle, yeah? The green ammonia engine will be built on the two stroke engine diesel principle. So it's only an add-on and the key is, and you deal with that, we're gonna, is certification. Okay, does it adhere to certification standards that is required? Ammonia, as an example, is toxic. So that's what you need to protect against. The good news, and it's the fact that today, 180 million tons of ammonia today is being consumed. 18 million tons is being traded and transported, yeah? So it means that there is an infrastructure today that's capable handling the current volumes. So one can make a safe assumption, we believe, that there will be capability to scale up the global infrastructure. But again, we need the regulation. If I can come in here, Randy, picking up on the point that Rasmus makes about the carbon levy, that it is when, not if. This really tallies well with one of the questions coming in from the audience, is that how important is that the IMO does not fail at this first hurdle in the development of policy to implement the initial strategy? Well, again, whether it's carrot or stick that Veronica talked about in her comments or essentially the levy as Rasmus is saying and then transport, basically changing that stick into a carrot, if you will, it is super important to make sure that those resources are being translated back into implementable alternatives. And I think that, again, not to backtrack on things that we've somewhat already covered, it does go back to the fact that the industry needs to focus on what that alternative fuel is. I briefly kind of referred to the fact that, the Getting Zero Coalition in conjunction with the Energy Transitions Commission put together this blueprint. And you need to have a roadmap, wherever you wanna go, and this blueprint really does give a very, in my opinion, really an objective view because it's not just a group of early adopters, stakeholders, or just a broad spot. It's really kind of looking at things and saying, okay, what are the challenges? Where does the economic hurdle exist? Does it exist in the transition on just the main engine problem? Or are we also looking at scaling up production? I mean, heavy fuel oil, low sulfur fuel oil are fuels that have been around for decades. And so they have inherent economies of scale advantages that are always gonna be difficult to overcome. Even if you assume there is a carbon levy that gets rolled into the cycle of implementation that allows us to expedite the adoption of alternative fuels. And again, it's a capital intensive industry that you're gonna have a combination of yes, some retrofits that will happen, but really for this to happen long-term, it's gonna have to come into new builds that are renewing the global fleet. So that it's a no-brainer to kind of say, okay, I'm not gonna choose a legacy or conventional ship. I should be choosing the decarbonized option because that's what's gonna be the most efficient thing. Retrofits are inherently still going to be limited by their, again, what they were originally designed to do, which is be powered by legacy fuels. But being able to take that technology back and making sure that whether it's Greenimonia or another alternative is able to be much more efficient in actually powering that vessel, that's how we're really truly gonna get to a zero fuel, a near zero carbonized future. Veronica, coming back to the insurance side, the measuring of new potential risks and assessing the impact of those. And here we could look at something like engineering risk because you talk about the data and the research, the industry and the supply chain as a whole. Can you give me a sense on how you're going to deal with new aspects that come to the fore and potentially on a regular basis? I think it's very much building on what Randy said. It's part of being a member of that pathway rather than just being on the sidelines. And I must confess to the very large audience that is listening to us today that I have a little bit of envy vis-a-vis the banking industry because I joined the Global Maritime Forum already a year and a half ago at the dinner and I sat next to an executive in the banking industry and he whispered in my ears the next day that we're going to announce the Poseidon principles. And he walked me through what the banking industry was doing with great excitement. And I think it's not my place to say when and if it will happen, but I actually think that's what is needed is a Poseidon type of approach across the insurance industry to really support colleagues like Rasmus and Randy to make sure that we can look at where is it that we see the obstacles to actually endorse thing? For instance, what Rasmus spoke about in terms of the carbon levy, it's something that we as an organization have already announced. I don't know how well known it is, but we're the first global company that actually apprised already for our own activities globally a price of $100 for as a carbon levy internally because we actually do think we need to find ways of reflecting already today the ultimate cost of the decarbonization activity. And we actually think that the price needs to go to 200 but we are transitioning ourselves. So I think that there is a need to marry both the individual conviction with an industry effort and aligning on the priorities of the maritime industry so that we can have aligned interventions. I think that's what is today not happening in a sufficiently structured way but I'm really hoping that my colleagues will be able to drum it up like the bankers have done. The alignment of pricing on this carbon levy, I mean, that has got to be one of the key issues. To have a levy, you have to have alignment and you have to have consistent pricing. Otherwise the whole model actually falls over. Rasmus, I suppose coming back to you, what is the alternative if the IMR doesn't actually agree a carbon levy? The problem is right now, it is the way. In the next five years, we see no alternative. You need the regulation to be there. There's such a price difference on the fuels that no company can go and get green because it's just too expensive. The margins in the trading environment is historically one to two percent but you need a $250 to $300 levy. So it just doesn't match. Then business will stop. We need it to happen. Otherwise, 2D carbonization will get significantly delayed and I think no one can afford that. Just one thing and I go back, Bronwyn, to your question before to Veronica, oh, what happens if I more failed? Oh, sorry, that was too rendy. And with what happens, we've just seen them have a working group meeting that leads up to the Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting next week. They failed to some extent the measures that they will implement for ships energy efficiencies, which is to be implemented by 2023 have significantly been watered down to an embarrassing level and very unclear. And again, it's one of these processes where I'm all, they had a chance. It wasn't clear. They couldn't get together. And it also pictures sort of the bureaucracy that the IMR have. So the IMR countries, they really have to step up. And what we're seeing, and this is an important message, we're seeing work happening that you have the EUHS schemes that you alluded to in the start, IMO will lose their agenda if they don't step up. The individual member countries will lose their agenda on the carbon levy if they don't step up. So, and that's a key message, I think, to take away from here as well to the audience and to the IMO member states listening in. So I just want to touch on this issue of how we can balance with, again, coming through from the audience, how we can balance other environmental impacts. Some low emission solutions are worse for the marine environment, scrubbers, ammonia spills, et cetera. Randy, you are nodding, I see Veronica is nodding there. So come in, Randy. No, I mean, it's what we were talking about earlier, which is if the regulation is not written properly, then you're going to have, to be honest, negative externalities. In the case of scrubbers, it was originally architected in a way to allow for ships that don't travel immediately between countries that have low sulfur fuels to then use heavy fuel oils and then instead in those specific areas. But they didn't really go through the details saying, well, you can't actually use things that end up dumping the offtake into the sea. But it goes back to, first of all, I do want to make sure that it's clear that it makes sense for the industry to be a big part of paying for this transition. But the industry, again, the reason why I say global maritime form is a very good example of this, it needs to be across all stakeholders in the industry. It can't be just ship owners alone or ship operators alone. It actually does need to also involve customers, which why the sea cargo charter is super important, but not just for commodity-based customers, but very broad-based customers that literally buy goods every day. The one thing that's happened in this global pandemic, not one thing, many things have happened, but one of the relatively more positive things that have happened in this pandemic situation is that shipping has not really stopped. There was a brief period of time where it was a very uncertain future in kind of the second quarter of this year, but really, even as economies have shut down, the gears of these trading belts, if you will, have always been running, whether it's foodstuffs, fruit that's coming from Latin America or Asia to other parts of the world, or finished goods that we buy every day. And so that underpins how important it is that this portion of the global economy has to manage this transition effectively. If it's done in a disruptive way, then the things that we take for granted, things that we're able to buy at pretty significantly affordable levels are going to be affected in the long run. So getting this right is absolutely crucial, especially if you expect really the global fleet to get to this decarbonized alternative. We've got another five minutes, and I want to come to each of you with concluding comments. We have just had the Minister of Aviation and Maritime for the UK Government, Minister Robert Court joining us. He will, of course, be closing after our closing comments. So I'm gonna start across the board, mindful that we need to keep them short and tight to allow for the minister to take to the stage, our virtual stage that is, at around about six minutes past the hour. Veronica, can I start with you on closing comments as we come back to accelerating this Race to Zero emissions shipping industry final? So absolutely, so I, but I will add just one quick thing to what Randy was saying before about the unintended consequences and the externalities. That's why, and maybe I use it as the time for my closing comments. That's exactly why we talk about frameworks. We don't talk about single interventions. As a company, we will look at the externalities that existing technology versus the new technologies versus the transformation, the supply chain will change. So that's the kind of framework approach that we absolutely embrace. And I believe that in particular in connection with national assets and biodiversity, we have an ability as an organization and as an industry to actually be good partners. We have created a biodiversity index. We have an ability to assess that risk at the granular level, our love if we could contribute it as part of the Global Maritime Forum efforts to really look at minimizing the impact of the externality. Otherwise we're trading one bad thing with another bad thing. And that cannot be the answer. But I still think that as an industry, we can do a little bit more and I hope to be able to grow more effort in that sense. Rasmus. Yes, thank you very much. Okay, so very briefly to finish it off. Carbon levy, it will drive the pace of shipping decarbonization, number one. Number two, at the recent annual Global Maritime Forum, widespread support that the industry needs and support a levy to drive the change. We don't have the tools today in the industry. Number three, I know decision makers should not use past decision-making processes to determine the future processes. The world has changed, indicated by share prices of very energy companies in the world. We need to come clean. Companies such as Traffic Work cannot decarbonize fast enough and we need things to change. The industry things needs to change and it's possible. I more will lose the agenda if they don't step up. The positive thing is it's possible and the industry can pay the visit. Randy? Thank you, Rasmus. Randy, a final comment before I hand over to Minister. Yeah, I think all of us would love to have more than two minutes. So what I would encourage those of you who are listening to today's session, please take the time to take a look at what the Global Maritime Forum and Getting Zero has put together in that blueprint. I've already referred to it a couple of times. It's more than just outlining the economic challenges. It provides a very clear pathway for the industry with regards to what exactly are the problems and then what are the solutions? And where are the solutions coming from? Are they coming from? And again, the solutions that need to happen for technical as well as the economic elements of this transition. I think all of us need to educate ourselves on the issues and that is why the industry has had a significant momentum in this direction. Again, we all know the traditional story about shipping. It's a very long-durated, very traditional, very opaque kind of, but the reality is as industry has educated itself on exactly what needs to happen going forward, that's how you get pilots off the ground. Pilots lead to more substantive kind of hubs of economic activity that allow you to actually extract the transition again, whether it's over water or on land. And that's really the only way that we're gonna get there because again, there's no clear alternative. It isn't just one silver bullet solution that's gonna solve everything. It's gonna be a combination of a couple of different strategies and all these things that we've talked about today, whether it be frameworks, carbon levy, all these different technical approaches are gonna have to be explored so that we can get there for all of us. Randy Chen, Rasmus Bach-Nielsen, Veronica Scotty, thank you very much for your time. It is now my pleasure to ask the Minister of Aviation and Maritime for the UK government, Minister Robert Courts to officially close our session. Minister. Thank you and a good day to you all, wherever in the world you're joining us from. It's an absolute pleasure to be with you today and I'm really grateful to our hosts, Mission Possible Platform, World Economic Forum, Getting to Zero Coalition and all of the distinguished panelists who've joined us today. Well, we're here today because the science is clear. Climate action cannot wait. Shipping is the backbone of our global economy. It moves approximately 90% of all traded goods and materials across the world. If we are to reach zero emissions across our countries in our supply chains, then zero shipping is imperative. Like the science itself, it is also clear that we will only succeed by working together. Every country, every business, every community, everyone, all must step forward with the highest possible ambition. And after listening to today's discussions, I am confident that we are on the right path. Industry is determined. The Getting to Zero Coalition is just one example of a remarkably forward-thinking group of industry players. Pioneering innovative solutions and demonstrating that clean shipping is effectively good business, we agree. In fact, research undertaken by the UK government suggests that the global market for emission reduction technologies for maritime transport could reach 11 billion pounds by the year 2050. And governments will play a pivotal, critical role in all of this. We must lead by example, provide clarity to industry and set the path for a just transition to all. Just last year, the UK proudly announced its 2050 net zero target for the whole economy and published the Clean Maritime Plan. The UK's route to zero emission shipping while securing clean growth opportunities for the country. This was developed in close collaboration with industry and academia and their input has been invaluable as we work to deliver on the commitments of the plan. This year, we have continued to build on this work with a bold and ambitious transport decarbonisation plan to achieve net zero emissions across all modes of transport by 2050. The Clean Maritime Plan took inspiration from the international maritime organisation's work in the setting of ambitious global targets to reduce greenhouse emissions from international shipping. The UK remains fully committed to the resulting initial strategy of the IMO which we are so fortunate to host in London. Working closely with industry and our fellow member states, we will continue to push for high ambition in this area domestically and with our international partners. This is an ambition that we bring ahead us ahead of our COP presidency. Today, of course, we should have been reunited face to face at COP26. However, as you all know, the COVID pandemic required us to put this on hold while we worked together to tackle yet another colossal global challenge. But as we slowly but steadily move towards long-term recovery, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to not just build back what existed before but to build back better. And ultimately, we have no other choice. If we are to reach our net zero targets by 2050, if we are to fulfil the Paris Agreement goals, we must embrace a green recovery. And COP26 will be our chance to do so. We must build not only a climate coalition to tackle a climate ambition but also set the building blocks that will reconstruct our global economy in line with climate targets. All eyes will be on us. But I know that we can and we will deliver. International cooperation, conversation and collaboration are innate to the shipping industry and they will be vital as we tackle climate change. As we look forward and look towards this historic and long-awaited COP26, let us lead the way, not only with our ambition but in working together internationally to transform shipping for the future. Thank you very, very much for all of your contributions today and we look forward very much to welcoming you in Glasgow next year. Thank you.