 Today, we have Jean Pascal Vanipersel, who's the Vice-Chair of the IPCC, and we also have Yuba Sakona, who is from the Working Group 3 Co-Chair of the IPCC. That's the working group that deals with mitigation. Today we're talking with our guests here about what are the implications of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report for Australia. Firstly, Jean Pascal, can you just give us a quick rundown of what the key messages are from the Fifth Assessment Report? I would say the four key overall messages as first that human influence on the climate system is clear. The second is that if emissions continue at the present pace, there will be increased impacts and the likelihood of severe impacts having pervasive effects and sometimes irreversible effects affecting first the poor, but later everybody will only increase. Third, there are many opportunities to address this problem by integrating mitigation and adaptation and also the pursuit of other societal objectives to the benefit of everyone. And finally, that humanity today has, in present tense, the means to cope with the problem and to build a more resilient future. There's some very powerful messages there which resonate a lot with the current circumstances in Australia. And so we'll go into those a little bit more soon. But Yuba, and what are your key messages from the Fifth Assessment? The Fifth Assessment Report on mitigation, we start with looking at the trend of emissions and they are growing unprecedentedly. Despite all the policy that has been undertaken so far, and we have seen from the last 40 years, more than half of the emission happened since 1750, the last 40 years and that is mainly driven by the economic growth and the population growth and as the policymakers have indicated to look at the two-degrees target and if we are continue the trend, at the end of the century we'll be beyond 1000 gigaton by the end of the century and then the policymakers have indicated the two-degrees and then the two-degrees we have looked at number of scenarios and then we are able to reach the two-degrees and it will be number of challenges at economical challenges, institutional challenges, technological challenges. But however we will be able to reach this if we start as soon as possible decarbonization of the entire economy starting with the energy sector. And then the cost of such decarbonization is not very high. It will based on the assessment because there is a number of economic assessment. It's only 0.0.2 of the global economy. And then this looking at the consequences is not a very big deal. Indeed. So you mentioned decarbonization pathways there. Can you just tell us a little bit more about what you see as the key pathways for countries like Australia, so developed countries and maybe what some of the co-benefits of effective decarbonization may be? One area that is there is a combination of how you decarbonize the economy starting with the energy efficiency. There is a wide range of possibilities from different sectors starting from the building sector, the industrial sector, the transport sector, a wide range of possibility of decarbonization of energy efficiency on those different sectors. And there is massive deployment, possibility of deployment of renewables. And then the cost of the renewable are decreasing dramatically. And then in many areas in the world it is cost competitive with fossil fuel based energy systems. And at the same time we are seeing also from the one of the big problem we are facing with the renewables is the intermittency. And then the cost of the storage system, the batteries are getting very dramatically reduced and at the same time very efficient. And then those give some perspective. And then there is a new emerging technologies. And then we have to look at the possibility how they can offer. They are not yet certain, such as carbon capture and sequestration. And then with bioenergy and then with afforestation, all those give the possibilities, but we have to start with energy efficiency renewables. And then to look at the policies that lead to low carbon to zero carbon in the entire economy. And for the case of the low income country, such as the African country give to them a tremendous opportunity to address the energy access issue because the scattered population, the low level of energy demand, and then the renewable are adequate to deal with that kind of situation so that a majority of the people will have access to energy. At the same time, we'll lead to a low carbon society or zero carbon society. Very interesting. And John Pascal, can you talk to us a little bit about the sort of co-benefits and how co-benefits from both adaptation and mitigation may feed into sort of other national priorities? It's really a very promising avenue because if you can kill, maybe the comparison is not good, but kill two birds with one stone, we shouldn't kill birds, but if you can do that, you can be more efficient. And for example, when you look at air quality, for example, bad air quality in many cities, many parts of the world, often comes from the usage of fossil fuel as well, bad combustion, too much traffic conjection, too little public transport, that kind of things. And it's the same cause if you stand back as the cause of greenhouse gas emissions. So there are ways to address greenhouse gas emissions and reduce them. And at the same time, improve air quality by reducing air pollution. And that way, you have a very short-term benefit because the air quality benefits are seen immediately and also a longer-term, medium-to-longer-term benefit in terms of reduced emissions to help protect climate. That's just one example. Another example is increased energy efficiency. When you have a higher energy efficiency, you reduce energy bills, which is good for the economy, which is good for people because they have more money to do something else, and it also helps to reduce emissions. So there are several ways to meet different goals by clever policies. If I may add on that, if you take the case of Africa, there are 600,000 people dead per year related to short-lived climate pollutants. And then by eliminating that, and also the all health-related issues, and then by eliminating the short-lived climate pollutant, and then by eliminating the fact of cooking with dirty shoes, that will help solve the problem, and then it will save also life, particularly women and kids. So it's a really important story here about investing in change, can bring additional benefits of different types. And so I think that's a very, very important story in terms of greenhouse gas mitigation, that's emission reductions, but also some reflections on how it may relate to adaptation that's adapting to the changes we're already seeing and may see more in the future. Well, a very classic example, maybe it's not the best example, but it's an example everybody understands, is that you could adapt to a warmer climate with much more heat waves, et cetera, by installing much more air conditioning everywhere. And it's a form of adaptation, but if you do that, of course, you'll increase the energy consumption and increase the greenhouse gas emissions. There are ways to design buildings and to improve the vegetation in cities, for example, to get to the same effect of decreasing the temperature, which is a kind of adaptation, prevents too much warming in cities in particular, and have adaptation which doesn't contribute so much to increasing emissions. So there are ways to integrate adaptation and mitigation in a clever manner, again, to get multiple benefits. That's right. And also the real question here is if we are not reaching the limit of adaptation in many places in the world, because adaptation has a limit. And there is a big difference between adaptation and mitigation because mitigation, we need incentive. We need clever policy in order to initiate, but adaptation have no choice. We have to start it. As we have seen, and adaptation are happening in many parts of the world. And then the real question, actually, looking at the trend of the emissions, if we are not reaching the limit of adaptation. Yeah. So there's a case for both adaptation and mitigation to be starting now and benefits that can be experienced right now, as well as benefits that can be experienced in the future. And those are an important equation. So how do you see that sort of equation of costs and benefits now and in the future sort of playing out in terms of the discussions at Paris and just reflecting on how countries like Australia, without being country specific, but developed countries may actually reflect on their targets at Paris. And how do you think they're coming? You know, we've got a range of targets from around 20% up to much more ambitious ones, 50% by 2030. And how do you see countries sort of starting to frame that given those costs and benefits? You know, this is very much related to the risk management approach that the IPCC has taken in its latest report. I mean, it's a question of balance. As Yuba said, you have to balance costs in the mitigation area, investment that you make to get benefits a little later in terms of reduced energy bills and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. And the cost of impacts and the cost of adaptation, which would increase very significantly if not enough mitigation is made. And it's a matter of balance. It's also a matter of when you pay for what? Because if we invest more today to mitigate, we will have, and our children, will have less to pay to more to adapt to the extent adaptation is still possible because, as Yuba said, adaptation has its limits as well. And I think it's important and what we have seen is encouraging, at least in the case of some of the developing countries. I just came from Cairo, Egypt four days ago where we had a discussion with the Bureau of the African Minister of Environment. And then they are preparing the Paris conference and Africa is initiating a proposal that is unprecedentedly ambitious because that is from now to 2020 to add new additional power of renewables of 10 gigawatt. And then this is quite ambitious in the continent. And then at least a minimum of 20 gigawatt of renewables. And then by 2030, between 2020 and 2030, and then a minimum of 100 gigawatt additional in the continent of renewable. And it is quite ambitious. And then because it addressing also a fundamental problem of the continent that is the adaptation. Because most of the people are not seeing renewable as being one of the critical element for addressing adaptation related to water, related to agricultural sector, related to most of the livelihood that is where adaptation is critical, is fundamental. And then this is quite ambitious. And I think that also those kind of ambition is needed from different part of the world. So it's a lot of it comes down to sort of investment in different options. And when you're talking with industry, how do you find industry sort of responding to the issues that you're raising? Well, in many parts of the world, larger and larger section of the industry see that it's to their benefits, to think about the future in the long term because it's what their consumers, their clients pay attention to and being very efficient with resources and energy is also good business. So an increasing fraction of the business community is actually demanding a good framework for action. For example, many, not all, but many are asking to have a price on carbon, for example, to the condition that it would be done in a fair way and extend to their competitors as well. So there's no competitiveness distortion. But the business community is moving ahead in the area of climate protection and not only in the mitigation area, but also to an increasing amount in the adaptation area as well. Because most of the infrastructure also in the engineering adaptation, the business sector is playing a critical role. And then for them, investing now is cost effective than waiting later. Waiting later might be out of reach and then they will lose their competitiveness. Very, very important message. Well, just to wrap up, I'm just wondering if you could give us a very quick, like one sentence summary of how you feel about this issue and the sort of messages you want to send to our viewers. You know, I'm very optimistic about the deal in Paris as far as the fact of having a deal at the end of the year. I think there will be a deal because the understanding, the awareness and the IPCC has helped for that, that there is really a problem we need to cope with is much higher now than 10 years ago. I'm a little less optimistic that that deal will solve all the issues at once. There will probably be needs for further negotiations and further progress in the future. But if there is a deal at the end of the year, and I think there will be one, things will be able to be built on it to go further because probably the sum of all the contributions announced will not be enough to keep the warming below two degrees and humanity will need to go further than what has been announced up to now. Yeah. As Jean Pascal, I'm also optimistic for number of reasons because we will have next September in Paris an agreement on the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. And those goals include in New York, Sustainable Development Goals, 17 goals. And so one of the goals, goal seven related to energy, sustainable energy for all. And then goal 13 is related to climate. And then that gives also a good indication, a good push for allowing climate change and sustainable development. And then, but the more weight, the more difficulty it will be with us. And then we have, we do not have, we have, we don't have to leave the burden to our kids. A good note to finish on. Jean Pascal and Yuba, thank you very much. And ANU wishes you a very productive and happy stay here. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you.