 Thank you very much. Let me just start by saying that I'm not a negotiator, I'm an observer of the negotiations, but I am an advisor to the chair and the group of least developed countries on the issue of loss and damage, so I have been following it for some time now. But what I'm going to share with you now is much more of a personal view on this, and I'll start by sharing an anecdote that happened just a few days ago. I was invited to an Islamic symposium on climate change in Istanbul just about a week ago. It was a two-day symposium with about 80 Islamic scholars and clergy, as well as other religions, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and they came out with the Islamic declaration on climate change, which you may have seen in the press. And I'm a Muslim, but I'm not a very faithful or practicing Muslim, but it did make me think about my faith. And in Islam, like many other religions, we are told to cherish the earth, nature, and not cause harm to our fellow human beings. And on those two basic tenets, we have in the declaration pointed out what that means in the climate change context. The first one means we have to bring down our levels of pollution, personally, individually, and collectively. And we have to, collectively, we have to become a fossil fuel free world as quickly as possible, which for many Islamic countries is not an easy thing for them to have to agree to, but they did because it's based on Islamic principles. The second one was on not harming our fellow human beings, which we are doing. By our pollution, we are actually causing harm to people who are living on this planet. And that's something we should not be doing. We should minimize as much as possible, but we can't minimize it to zero, so we have to take responsibility for helping those that we are harming. And in the case of the most vulnerable people on the planet, a very large number of them actually happen to be living in Muslim countries like my country Bangladesh or Pakistan or Niger or other countries around the world. Very large numbers of them are Muslim. And therefore, for those of us who are better off, we have a personal responsibility. So my take on this issue is going to be very personal and moral, and I'll pick up on some of the points that were made in the earlier discussions this morning on the moral case that George Meisner started with. As an individual, we have to take responsibility, and every single one of us in this room are polluters. We are part of the problem. Our carbon footprint is much, much higher than the global average and many, many hundreds of times higher than the poor people living on the planet. We must take personal responsibility for that. That's unquestionable to me, moral case that each of us needs to address and think about how we're going to do something about it. And I'll pick up on a few of the points that were made earlier and elaborate on them. The first one is in terms of this normative value, in terms of civilization. In my view, if we want to call our planet and our society a civilized society, then one of the characteristics of a civilized society is taking care of the most vulnerable. If a civilized society, if a society does not, if it causes harm to the vulnerable and it doesn't take care of them, then it is not a civilized society. And right now, unfortunately, we are exhibiting attributes of being a non-civilized society. We are causing harm to our fellow human beings, and we are refusing to take action to help them, by the most part. The second part of my argument would be to talk about the issue of justice, which Dirk Meissner also talked about and some of the other speakers brought up. To me, it is a matter of justice, but justice by itself as an ideal is an insufficient characterization of the term. To me, a much more, if you like, accurate characterization of the situation is manifest injustice. What describes the situation now is a problem caused by the rich, and that includes everybody in this room, affecting the very poor on the planet. That's not just, that's not right. That's not morally correct. And we each have to take responsibility for that. And we need to fight it. We need to fight injustice, not fight for an ideal of justice, but fight for manifest injustice. And the final point I'll make is how do we do that in the UNFCC context? I won't talk about the whim which we've already heard about, and I'm a full supporter of the Executive Committee. I hope that they do their work plan in record speed, and by COP22 we have a very good product. But I will talk about the bigger picture, which has already been brought up here, which is what is going to be the long-term goal. If the long-term goal is two degrees, then we, the polluters, are deciding on behalf of the victims of our pollution that it's all right. Ecosystems will be lost, we know that. We saw the bars that Petra showed us. People will lose their lives. Communities will lose their livelihoods. And that's okay with us. By agreeing to degrees, that is what we are saying. We are saying it is okay to write off people, ecosystems, communities, whom we are going to affect by our pollution, but it's too tough for us to reduce our pollution, so hard luck guys, you're going to have to, you are going to have to suffer for my inability to take action. We need to have a long-term target of one and a half degrees. Whether we achieve it or not does not matter. It is a matter of morality that we must accept one and a half degrees. If we don't do that, as far as I'm concerned, then the entire edifice of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has lost its purpose. It's not unable to have a collective decision in the interests of mankind. It has decisions in the interests of the rich and powerful. It's been doing that for 20 years. If they do that again in Paris, then as far as I'm concerned, I have no more track with them.