 Okay, so I think we are going to start now. Thank you so much to everyone for being here. As you know, this is the Green Growth Summit is 2023. The reason why we like doing this conference a lot, and I work for Bloomberg, so as you can imagine, we care about this topic greatly, is because it's very good at putting together the key topics, but also bringing in very good names that kind of get the pulse of where the situation is with regards to the politics, but also the companies and just the overall science. So I'm very happy to be here. I also wanna say, of course, just for housekeeping, that in every panel, there will be time for questions for you, so it's not just me speaking the entire day here. So if you have questions, all you need to do is you put your hand up, you say who you are, and then you address the question to whoever you want to address the question. And also, I think if I'm not mistaken, we do have also a way to send questions online. I'll be checking them on my phone. And there is a hashtag, which is the Green Growth Summit 2023. You send them there, and I will read them and put them to our speakers. And then before I begin the first session, I also wanna say thank you to the partners that put this together. Obviously it's the Green Growth Partnership, the CLG Europe, which is represented by Ursula here, but also thank you to a number of ministries that have put together this agenda and helped, and they are the climate ministries for Germany. We'll be joined by a German envoy in the next panel, also the climate ministry of Norway, Finland, and the climate and environment ministry of Portugal. And now on that note, let's start with the first session. So we're now joined by Ursula Whitmoren, who we know. I told you to switch on the mic and it's me, that's not special. So Laura, obviously, well, we all know you're the director of CLG Europe, and we're also joined by Kurt Sanderberger, who is, of course, well, also known here, the director general for GG Climate at the European Commission. The point in this session, and we talked about it earlier, this conference is usually very sixth inch, but this year it's different because it's this 10th year anniversary, you take a stop, so also you project yourself to the future. So, Kurt, what could start with you? I wonder if you need to take a stop, but also how do you see things later in the next 10 years? All easy questions. Okay, very happy to be here. Happy anniversary to the Green Growth Partnership. 10 years, we need you a lot longer in town as well in the next 10, 20, maybe 30 years, or horizon is 2050, as you know. So I do wish you good health and a lot of impact for the next 30 years. 2013, 10 years ago was the year when the emission trading system entered its phase three. We introduced then a single EU-wide gap on emissions and imposed auction as the default tool for the allocation of ETS allowance. Sorry, can you pick up the microphone that are being signaled over there, just to make sure that it's not even there? Okay, is this better? Okay, very good. So then 2013 was also the year in which we introduced, entered with ETS in its phase three. It's had massive benefits so far. We have been able to reduce emissions in the ETS sectors by more than 37%. And since 2013, 10 years ago, ETS has generated 152 billion euros of revenues, which for the most part are reinvested in climate and energy. And I'm saying this because it's the 10th anniversary of the partnership, but also of this ETS phase three, which has really become the jewel and the workhorse of our climate policy. And it's also why I think those of you who have heard Mr. Huxtra during his hearing say that he fell in love with ETS. That's the reason why he fell in love with such an abstracting as ETS. So it's on that basis, namely putting a price on pollution that we have been able to make a lot of progress in the last few years. In 2018, the commission presented the clean planet for all, going for the ambition of making Europe climate neutral by 2050. And we then had an agreement on the 40% reduction target for 2030 until the current commission came into office and said, 40 is not enough, we need more, we need to go for 55, at least by 2030. I'm saying all this to really get a message across that you don't build these transitions in one year or in five years. It really needs a long-term vision with lots of stepping stones. And we've been able to put in place the Green Deal on the basis of lots of previous instruments, experiences, et cetera. I think with the Green Deal, we now have a whole of government, a whole of economy approach to transitioning to a climate neutral economy, but one that is also very importantly decoupling resource use from economic growth, that better values and treasures of nature and does all this in a socially fair manner, the just transition. That is really, I think, what this commission has been able to achieve. There is no way back on this. There's no way back. Everyone understands there is no alternative to this anymore. I should say though, that when we launched the European Green Deal with this ambition in 2019, we were often told that we were idiots for giving up our competitive advantage and inflicting all these costs on our economy. We were told, why does Europe do this alone if the rest of the world is not following? Well, today, 2023, we see a very different world. We see a world where others may be overtaken Europe and where we risk losing our competitive advantage in clean tech and green economy. China is investing more in the renewable energy than the rest of the world combines. We know in the US what the IRA is doing in terms of attracting investment. We recently had big announcements from the African continent, which is also turning the page and saying, we are the continent of the green solutions for the transition. So what is very important now for us is that we stay the course. We stay the course as we have done in the past years through a pandemic, through very negative impacts of the dreadful war on Ukraine and most lately, the challenge that the IRA is throwing to us. We have stayed the course. Each time we have reacted, not by decreasing our ambition on green, but rather to the contrary, redoubling on our ambition and our efforts. And the result of this is that is now finally understood that climate and sustainability is not only about the planet. It's really about the economy. It's the economy, stupid, which brings other challenges with us. But we've seen, for example, the statement from Mr. Sunak in the UK of not going that fast. Well, he got actually a lot of pushback from the business sector itself for having confused the investment signals. So that is a very welcome development. They said once you start, it's actually more difficult for business to go back and figure out where you want to go. What is very important is predictability and consistency. And if you start changing the signals and the regulatory framework, business doesn't know anymore and you become untrustworthy as a government or as a public authority. And what we see is that this transition needs a very sophisticated interplay between the public and the private sector. It's much less of the free markets that we have before. Of course, the market still remains the most powerful mechanism. That's why we go for ETS, which is a market-based mechanism. But the interplay between public and private sector becomes much more important. So you asked me what it means for us in the near future. Well, I think what we no need to do is concentrate on implementation. Not have endless debates about ambition, is our ambition right or wrong, but implement what we have agreed with the fit for 55, with the national energy and climate plans, etc. and mobilize investment. This is really no for the next 10, 15 years an investment agenda. So we really need to mobilize lots of investment. Secondly, we need to work much more with and for industry. That's definitely the wake-up call we got from the IRA. We are creating a massive market in Europe for clean tech, for green products in the future. We cannot afford that all this market is supplied from outside Europe. Because if that happens, we can't sustain our climate ambition. So industrial competitiveness is name of the game also to succeed in the Green Deal and the climate transition. And lastly, of course, international. We need to work a lot more with our international partners. We have the COP28 in Dubai coming up. Important milestone as every COP is, but we also need to conclude a lot of win-win partnerships with the global south because we remain very dependent on imports of energy, of critical raw materials, many other things. So we need to conclude these win-win partnerships with the global south so that everyone is moving on the ladder of sustainability. And I'll just close by saying that we are, as part of our implementation work, also working on the 2040 target. We will be presenting a communication in early 2024. Very important there to have the right investment signal. So we'll do it in a way that it facilitates implementation and investment this decade because investments take a time horizon that is typically much longer than seven years, 20, 25, 30 years. We'll have to tackle a few difficult issues like agriculture and food, where a lot more is needed, but we all realize how difficult that is. So we need to tread very carefully there, but resolutely carbon removals will become very high on the agenda. Circular economy. I'm convinced that the next decade will be one of really bringing down to reality the circular economy a much smarter use of resources and materials in our economy. And lastly, and probably the most difficult of all is to start influencing consumer behavior. Because we see in our modeling that the more we can influence, shift consumer behavior, the less costly will be your transition to climate neutrality by 2050. And that's where I hope partnerships like the Green Growth Partnership can help us in giving the ideas, the solutions on how to do this in a way that it actually works and that we don't get into polarized debates and identity politics, which would be really detrimental for achieving our ambition. Well, Kurt, that was, well, thank you for that presentation. Very comprehensive. There's many follow-up questions that I wanna put to you after that. But before, let's go to Ursula and let's just get your take on this. I saw you were nodding in many of the statements that he made. Yes, is it working? Okay, here we go. Indeed, I really appreciated Kurt's wise words, really. I mean, this point about the long-term predictability for business is something that we have really worked on for a long time. We really see the need to lay out a compelling vision for where we need to get to. What are the things that we need to get there? And then that's how we can mobilize finance. That's how we can mobilize the different businesses. But just to kind of step back, I think, as he said, the Green Growth Partnership was founded in 2013. I think it was a big moment, a lot stimulated by the UK at the time. And the first summit really called for an ambitious post-2020 policy framework. And what we heard from Kurt was a lot of the things that have been done, there has been enormous shifts in the legislation. And I think sometimes we do forget that. We see where we are and we forget the enormous changes that have happened. And I think we should look at that and we should see that and address what has worked as well in the past. What elements have been successful? What have been less successful? And fundamentally, at CLG Europe, what we see is the need for business and governments to work together to work in this positive ambition loop where we can work together on the long-term vision. We consider what are the key policies that can unlock the pace and scale that we need to drive the systemic change across sectors, across Europe, across the world, in fact, because I mean, most companies are international. And then we work together to drive that. And I mean, clearly, this is no time for complacency at all. It is a very difficult situation right now. It's now the hottest year, well, likely to be the hottest year that humanity has ever seen. We have a very difficult global situation getting more complex by the day, as we have seen. But what we really have seen as well is that if we really put together the vision that supports a competitive Europe, one that is founded on competitive sustainability, that is guided by the ideals of the Green Deal, the long-term climate neutrality and aim to bring in nature as well. I mean, we shouldn't forget this is a really key point. We need to really bring in questions around nature positivity and the environment in the future that that can really guide action. And it has stood up a lot to the big questions of recent times, to the pandemic, to the war in Ukraine. It has really guided action. And I think that's the really key point. And when we look ahead, I think we have to see a couple of points at the international level. How do we really support the phase out of fossil fuels? I think we'll hear a little bit more today from partners here who are working on a fossil to clean campaign at Weemin Business. We'll think about what the impact is of the global stock take. How is it that we get to 1.5? And we'll really think about how to implement the different policies that we need to achieve by 2030. And a lot of the work that we have done has really shown the importance of putting the right context in place for 2030 and for other policies. How do you really make it a situation where people and businesses will choose to choose the right clean solutions, choose different elements? And some of the work that we've done has really shown that what you do is you put in place, you make sure you're communicating in the right way from the right communities. You have the right policies at local level. You mobilize finance so that it is not, you know, it is achievable financially for people. And if you do that, and we have a wide variety of best practices to share and we hope to continue doing so through the Greengrove Partnership, you can really drive the pace and acceleration that you need to do. And a lot of the businesses that we've been working with and are here in this room today have been putting in place big ambitious targets, have been driving the electrification of their fleets, have been driving the take-up of renewable electricity, new technologies, have clear targets in place. And I think that really this is the time that we need to all work together to achieve this positive ambition loop. I mean, as Kat says, we don't really have a choice, right? Globally, we are in a competitive situation. There is a climate crisis that is affecting both our lives in Europe, but also globally, it will affect there'll be risks to the supply chains, there'll be risks for people, there'll be risks from nature. And so what we need to do is tackle this enormous problem, we need to take it by the horns and move and go forward to the future. So it's not really a choice, but there is a question about how to do it, how to do it well, and how to work in partnership across sectors and across the politics. Well, thank you for that. And Kurt, I know you're busy and have to go, so I will ask you multiple questions, hopefully not too many, but to the point. You said, and given that we're in this business context that at the beginning, the European Union was criticized for taking all of this action, that you lose competitiveness. Now you see that the Inflation Reduction Act, they're putting a lot of money to work in the US. You talked about China too, so now it seems that if you're not in this race, you actually risk, well, not just staying behind, but also losing business opportunities. I wonder when it comes to this two-way relationship that you're gonna need, what is the biggest accelerator that you believe could happen in this relationship between the private and the public? What is the biggest impediment at this point? And it's a final one because I know you have to go, so I'm gonna ask you many in a row, is we're in Brussels, you know everyone is talking about this. Do you believe the European elections, maybe the future commission, a lot of this could change that long-term vision? Good questions. I'm also grappling with these questions. So a few thoughts. First, the big advantage we now have in the EU is that we have established a clear regulatory framework which gives certainty. So you could simplistically say, the US is subsidizing itself to climate neutrality or decarbonization. The EU is regulating itself. And that's a little bit the simplistic difference between the two of us. What we see is that there is a lot of businesses now looking at the US in terms of what the IRA offers them. We have not seen the big exodus of investments or investment leakage that some were fearing, but we have to stay very vigilant. We cannot be complacent. And we do see signals that European businesses are attracted by the IRA. You haven't seen the super exodus that being cleared at the start of the year. So far, not so far. Some have happened. But many companies now in Europe are sitting on the fence and are trying to see where to make their investment. They're not abandoning Europe. They're really looking at, should we first invest in US and then in Europe or first in Europe and then in the US? That's a little bit because the capital is limited, right? So they have to make choices where to go. The big disadvantage that the US has is that there is no guarantee of a market in the future because what happens if the administration changes there? What happens if there is no clear policy of phasing out fossil fuel from the system, whereby the prices of fossil fuels of gas, for example, would remain very competitive, more competitive than other green solutions, which would at a certain point in time not have the tax advantages anymore. So that's a clear uncertainty. That's the advantage we have in Europe now. That we provide that regulatory certainty for investors. The problem here is that we do not have for all sectors, for many sectors we have, but we do not have for all sectors a clear business case for investing in decarbonizing here. Also because of our high energy prices. The prices will go down at some moment in time in the future, hopefully sooner rather than later. But how do we bridge that period of the next two, three, five years where the energy prices are high? The solutions, the technologies for decarbonizing exists. Can I just ask you very quickly there, Kurt, because you make a very good point. You talked about the energy crisis and I'm glad you did, because that brings the entire context into perspective. What do you say to those who say you're pushing ahead with this green revolution in this context of very high? Well, not high as the record prices we saw in the summer, but really more than average. It is too much to take on. What do you respond to that? It is tough, but there is no alternative I think because we pay high prices because we are very import dependent for fossil fuels. We import 90% or more of our fossil fuels. So we pay a very high price for this fossil fuel dependency. So our only choice, our only option is to invest in a low carbon decarbonized mostly renewable, but not only based energy system. That's for the future, our best investment in global competitiveness. But it's that bridging period where we have a difficulty and where we need to work with businesses on having their business case for decarbonizing investments in Europe. That's exactly what we have now started doing. I just come from the first clean transition dialogue with industry on hydrogen, where we bring together industry across Europe, both demand and supply side and see how we can really use the scale and scope of the single market and align the funding that is needed, which is in the system already, but very fragmented compared to what the US is offering. If we can align this and make it an attractive proposition for businesses to invest here, then we can really make a positive difference. So, and that's especially the case I think for energy intensive industries, which are of course faced with these high prices. If you ask me what will happen after the next elections, next commission, much will depend on the outcome of the elections, of course, and who will be the president of the European Commission. But I do think that the ambition that we have set alone or for climate will not be questioned anymore. The cost-effective manner of how to achieve that, that is, as Ursula was also saying, a matter for debate and that will be with us for many years to come. But I don't feel from any national administration, for example, a willingness to put everything into question. They are overwhelmed, national administrations, businesses are overwhelmed, but no one is questioning the direction and the ambition. It's more how we do it rather than if we do it. Ursula, do you want to have a final word? I think Kurt said most of the things I would have replied, so that's great. And I really think that is so critical. We are, we need to go in this direction. And I think that any delays now, it just makes it more complicated and more expensive to do it. So, it's really about how we do this quickly, bringing people along, however, talking to local communities, talking to businesses, seeing what the best paths forwards are. And so we certainly, for example, are supporting the discussion around the 2040 targets. We came out with this position of at least 90% by 2040 because I think it's really important to set the ambition and then look at the pathways, look at the ways we can drive investment. As you say, how can we drive investment into the clean technologies we need? How can we drive investment into the communities, bring the skills as well? How skills is a huge an issue in the future? How do we make sure that we have the right jobs, a decent jobs, the right skills to enable the future that we are aiming for here, which should be a prosperous one, a climate neutral one and a nature positive one. And as you say, once you put the date, then it's not about when, but how do you get to that date? There's a pressure of the deadlines, of course. Well, a round of applause to the two of them. Thank you so much for sending the scene for us. Wonderful to see you both. And before we continue, however, we also move on to our next panel. We have a video from Austria's Cleven Meister. Her name is Leonor Gabisler and she couldn't be here in person, but she did leave a message that I want you to see. So let's play the message. Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, I'm honored to be delivering this welcome statement to this year's summit. On the occasion of celebrating 10 years of the Green Growth Partnership. The Green Growth Partnership is a very unique and a very special form of exchange among policymakers and businesses that are united in their progressive attitude to the most pressing issues of our time. And without a doubt, one of the most pressing issues and the most challenging issues of our generation is the climate crisis. This past July and August were the hottest month ever recorded on Earth. We witnessed extreme temperatures, heatwaves, wildfires, flooding. This is our new reality, our new normal, as we stand at around 1.2 degrees of global heating. And this is only the beginning if we don't manage to turn around. So what makes me confident that we can actually turn the wheel around? 10 years ago at the start of the Green Growth Partnership the world was quite different. There was no Paris Agreement. There were no NDCs. There was no Green Deal. There were no concrete plans for phasing out fossil fuels. In the past five years alone, we have adopted a European climate law, a new European adaptation strategy, a strengthening of member states, effort sharing, an extension of the EU emissions trading scheme including a social climate fund, stringent emission standards for new cars as well as important legislation on renewable energy, on energy efficiency and on energy security to name just a few. We are today in a very different Europe and a very different world than we were in 2013. Does that mean we're all set? No, obviously not. Delivering on the Paris Agreement means we need to recognize that the marathon of transformation has only just begun. The first global stock take at the UN climate conference this year will therefore be key. And I'm hopeful that it will send strong signals around the world for this critical decade up to 2030. And also beyond the current mandate of the commission, we must take the next steps to close remaining gaps and set our sights on 2040 by delivering on a Green Deal 2.0 for the next commission mandate. And let me add one thing in this group of like-minded friends, independent of who we vote for in the next elections, European or national, let us work together to prevent that the climate discourse is being hijacked by populists. Those populists who stir up uncertainty by distorting facts and sometimes even blunt lies, those populists who will never deliver on solutions because their political momentum feeds of exacerbating problems. Those populists who want to profit from the uncertainty that they created. We must stand together and offer concrete solutions and hope to the people in Europe and the world and work for a just transition that actually delivers on leaving no one behind. There's much to do and it can be done if we work on this together. It is in this spirit that I say, here's to the next 10 years. I wish you all a very exciting meeting. We'll introduce them to the panelists. And then on that note, I want to bring in our next panelists, which is, if I may perhaps call her name is Professor, well, Laura Diaz-Anadon, if you want to maybe sit closer to me and then we're good. And I have an exciting presentation to come. I want to see it. We're also joined remotely by Berhard Goitke. He is representing the German Ministry for Climate Action and Economic Affairs. Unfortunately, he couldn't be with us today in person, but Mr. Gotke, if you hear us, then turn on your camera and the sound. You'll be the second panelist joining us in person. We have the Ambassador Pierre Cartuvel, who's here representing the Belgian government. You're going to have a lot of homework based on what Kurt said next year. So it's good to get started. Joining us also online, we have Rafael Mateo, who is the CEO of Acciona, a big Spanish company. We also have Villaninisto, who is an MEP for the Greens. And then last, but not least, Megan, I know you want to go on stage. So we're joined by Megan Mitrovsky-Dale, who is director for the Environmental Sustainability at Coca-Cola Euro-Pacific Partners. And I believe now, if everyone who is connected online is connected and has their camera on, then we should be good to go. So the name of the panel is the Stepping Stones to 2040, the road ahead for those targets. And we're going to start with Professor Diaz because there's a reason behind this number and it's not just out of the blue, random target. I know you worked on the studies behind the reasons for it. So I wonder with the presentation that I know you've brought along, if you could explain how you see things now from here to there and what's the rationale behind it. And of course, the floor is yours. Thank you, Marianne. Thank you to the Greengrove Partnership for inviting me. I think we have the slides here, just two, not more. I'll take you through the process that we went through in the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, which was created by the UClimate Law in 2021, which the commissioner mentioned. And I'll take you through the process. And I want you to leave with, I guess, three key messages. The first one, if we can go to the first slide, please. Yes. You can escape them. I actually don't really need the slides, but I'm not doing it. I'll just start because I know where, yeah. No, no, no, it's okay. So we were tasked with providing input to what the 2040 target might be. And we conducted an analysis. The first thing that I wanted to say, great, is that the starting point for this analysis was where two things. First of all, the climate neutrality objective by 2050. So that was the starting point. And the other starting point was, of course, the 1.5 ambition of the Paris Agreement. So those were the two things that really started our whole analysis. It's worth mentioning that, of course, the 1.5 target, Paris target, was reaffirmed in both Glasgow in 2021 and in Charmille's Shake in 2022. Then if you see the slide, what we see is that there are two big parts of our analysis that were initially done separately. The first one is this feasible pathway consideration. So what we did in the advisory board is that we collected over 1,000 scenarios, both from the IPCC. The most recent IPCC Working Group 3 report, but also newer scenarios that reflected some of the inertia in the climate system. So we had over 1,000 scenarios. And we basically filtered them, first of all, to make sure that they were consistent with the 1.5 target, again, as per our starting point, and also consistent with the 2050 European cladmin neutrality. So we started with those two things. And then we conducted a set of feasibility checks. So some of the feasibility checks we have here on the slide, but I think you cannot see it. So we try to consider the feasibility of scenarios if we wanted to avoid very high levels of biomass. And this is all again, of course, based on the scientific literature, very large scale deployment of carbon capture and storage and utilization. Potentially unrealistic levels of carbon removals on land. As we all know, the land sink has been decreasing in the EU. And also we wanted to consider the fact that very sharp reductions in energy demand might be very difficult and not very feasible from a sociocultural perspective. I should note that all of the scenarios that are consistent with the climate neutrality target and also with the target that we came up with have some version of these things. So it's not that we didn't include any of these things, but we tried to avoid unrealistic levels or unrealistic contributions of, again, biomass, CCUS, CDR on land, and very, very large changes on energy demand. So that's the first piece on the feasible pathway. The second piece that we did is this, and I should note the other feasibility analysis that we conducted was on the pace of scale up of renewables, as well as on the pace of scale up of hydrogen. And again, if you're interested, we have all of the thresholds and all of the justifications and references. The second piece is on the right-hand side and it's this analysis of the fair share. So here we looked at again at the literature, the IPCC. And as you may know, there is a large literature on feasible way or on fair ways of allocating the remaining carbon budgets. So there are different principles. There's polluter pays, equal per capita, historical emissions, and all of those principles are equally valid in the sense that they are supported by the literature. And what we did is that we calculated all of those for the EU. This is a very important topic, first of all, again, because there's a literature, but of course, because it was very important to lay out what are the different approaches, because it's really a value judgment, which to decide which of those one uses. So having done all of that, if we go to the next slide, the second point, besides the starting point of the 1.5, is really that when considering those two pieces, we ended up with this set of pathways that led us to come up with a recommendation to have a target for 2040, of 90% reductions over 1990, at least, and up to 95%. We say up to 95%, because when you get to the 95%, you end up running into some of these big ecological risks. We end up bumping very strongly against some of these civility thresholds that I mentioned earlier. And the other piece of this advice, again, the second key message is really that in addition to these targets, it's very important that the EU also pursues external action outside of the EU to reduce emissions outside of the EU, as well as pursuit of carbon dioxide removal. The reason for this is that even when looking at these things, there's still a gap between the feasible and the fair, no matter what fairness principle one chooses, so to speak. So that's the second point. On this figure, what we can see is that the green line, the green bar, is really one that shows that actually the 55% target by 2030 that, again, was mentioned by Kurt van der Beggel is very much online, is consistent with the 2040 target. So that's one of the key messages that we also have in this advice. It's kind of on the upper end of this, but it is largely consistent with it. And then the green bar is the one that really is safer in terms of some of these ecological impacts in terms of land uses. Just two things on this scenario. So again, we have three iconic pathways that we lay out. It doesn't mean that they cover every possibility, but there are a few common features of some of these scenarios that are consistent with the 2050 and the recommended 2040 target. The first one is at the carbonized power sector by 2040. Again, that's something that was discussed just previously. The second one, all of them have lower energy demand. Some of it is because when you electrify, you become more efficient. Some of it is in some scenarios reduction in demand and in some of them we have some changes in lifestyles which again was one of the areas that Kurt van der Regen mentioned as one of the key challenges. We also have, again, a key feature is reducing non-seal to emissions from agriculture and waste. That's another common feature in all of the scenarios consistent with the target. Scale-up of carbon removal, again, different extents in different scenarios. And also a scale-up of hydrogen, although mainly for aviation, maritime, and heavy fuels. Finally, the last message, if I still have a second that I wanted to mention, is that we also highlight in this analysis what are some of the benefits of climate action. And the ones that we really highlight from the analysis that we conducted as part of this report were really some of the avoiding locking of fossil fuel assets, also improved energy security, and also the health and lower pollution benefits of the transition. They're not the only benefits. We have sections where we talk a little bit on the literature and some of the economics and competitiveness benefits, but we really highlight that almost the sooner we move down, we avoid cumulative emissions but also get some of these benefits early. With that, the last thing is that the key challenge is going forward to make this happen and of course on the ensuring that policy decisions bring everybody along, as Ursula was saying earlier, and that they consider some of the distributional and competitiveness issues associated with continuing that path. Thank you. Thank you so much before we continue with the rest of panelists. I was very struck because I kept hearing this in your presentation, you repeated many times, it's got to be fair and visibility. Is that the crux of the tension in this argument? Do you have to look at both? Yes, so that was the key thing that we wrestled with, how were we going to come up with something that was feasible given what we know about the momentum in the infrastructure, in emissions, about the budget, without really hurting in a major way, ecosystems as I mentioned, but also fairness, there's a huge literature on this from legal philosophy and from various other principles, and what we found when we did those two pieces of the analysis that almost no matter how you did it, there was always a little bit of a gap in between. So it was looking for something that was as fair as possible, was still being feasible, and that's why we have those additional recommendations. And just to find a point on this, but I think it's very important, is it fair and feasible across the European Union? Yes, so our analysis of fairness was looking at the role of the EU versus the rest of the world. So we looked at that fairness dimension, but there are also other very important fairness considerations in terms of intra-EU fairness, and that is not part of the analysis that we conducted, but we do discuss that this is one of the important areas that when we are thinking of policy designed to meet potentially this target, and also the carbon neutrality target is essential. So we did not look at that. Super important. And now let's go to Germany, obviously connected online, I wish we could teleport, but that's not the case yet. It's Mr. Wittke, thank you so much. You're representing the German federal government. Some people say that Germany finds itself facing the biggest challenge of all in the European Union. Others say this is the biggest opportunity. Obviously you know you're a big economy, you have the resources, also the political will to some extent too in the coalition, but also you're a very heavily industrialized country that depends now on industries that definitely have become more expensive. How do you combine the two to get to this target in 2040? Is it doable? Oh, thank you. Well, very much. Thank you very much, Mrs. Thaddeo, firstly and dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, firstly a good afternoon to all of you from Berlin, and perhaps you give me the chance to thank the corporate leaders group for organizing this timely event and congratulate you and ask for 10 years of fruitful cooperation in the green growth partnership. As previous speakers also have pointed out, a lot has been achieved in these past years. 10 years ago, the price of the ETS certificate was well below 10 euros. Germany did not have a phase-out date for coal and we had neither a Paris agreement nor a European climate law providing for a new climate neutrality target for 2050. So dear colleagues, we have come a long way in the last years, most notably the adoption of the biggest chunk of the legislative files of the Fit for 55 package in a challenging time of multiple crisis is a historic milestone. I think there's not a exaggeration, but that is a realistic description of what we have achieved. Fit for 55 underlines that fossil energies will no longer be the basis for the economy. In addition, it highlights that renewable energies are also freedom energies. I think that is also important to point out in those days rendering the EU independent from Russian fossil fuels. However, there is still some unfinished business and we need to conclude the remaining Fit for 55 trilog negotiations swiftly. A high level of ambition in EU climate energy files will also help us to achieve our own ambitious domestic climate targets in Germany. So implementation is the order of the day. Implementing ambitious targets into efficient, socially fair and effective measures that will guide investments, ensure planning security for businesses and very importantly make a just transition possible that all these elements will be key. It is as challenging as it is necessary in a time of increased international competition and also geopolitical insecurity and end to the democratic movements on the rise. Climate targets and policies are just about, are not just about climate, they are at the heart of solving many of the EU's strategic challenges. And this brings me, ladies and gentlemen, to the next phase of transformation. At the same time as implementing the Fit for 55 package, we must also look ahead to the next phase of the transition. The global stock take under the Paris Agreement will undoubtedly show that the world is not on track to achieve the 1.5 degrees limit. We welcome the commission's advisory boards, scientific guidance for the new EU climate target for 2040 in this context. The new climate target is about designing the next phase of the transition as we get closer to net zero emissions. Firstly, dear colleagues, we all know that the last reduction towards net zero will be the most expensive ones as we are then talking about hard to obeyed emissions. We must pick the more low-hanging fruit first and in good time as the clock is ticking. Secondly, we see the deployment of renewables accelerated in the European Union. They are now rightly recognized as a stable asset regarding cost trends, ensuring our independence from autocratic systems. We should use this opportunity really. Thirdly, the 2040 target must be part of our response to the challenge of global competitiveness. We must make sure we do not lose out on the race to competitiveness in net zero technologies and industries. We do not believe in a global subsidy race but should try to win business investments with the outlook of a clear and reliable framework geared towards net zero economy. All these reasons, the climate crisis, cost efficiency, energy security and the global race to net zero make a strong case for deviating from a linear pathway towards net zero. I also take note and welcome that businesses organized in the corporate leaders group are calling for an ambitious 2040 target. To be frank, Germany does not have a position on the new target level yet. However, because we are just at the beginning of the discussion, however, we do have a national binding reduction tagged of 88% for 2040, which together with sinks brings us to about 91%. Of course, we have this in mind when we join the discussion on the EU target. Ladies and gentlemen, apart from the target level, the target design will also be important. Removal of CO2 and its storage, both in biogenic and technical sinks must be an indispensable part of the discussion for 2040. However, we must be quite clear, reducing emissions has to remain our top priority. We believe that our natural sinks are threatened by climate change and we see large energy and spatial needs when it comes to technological carbon removals which need to be addressed. Therefore, it would be wise to have separate targets for reducing carbon emissions, for increasing our natural sinks and for scaling up technological removals. This will also create a clear planning horizon for business and prevent log-in effects for the use of fossil fuels in carbon-intensive business models. We still have big challenges ahead. In many sectors, the instruments are there, such as the directives for renewables and for efficiency, but we'll need to be updated. In some other sectors, for instance, agriculture, we will need to add to the policy toolbox to tackle these emissions. In this context, we look forward to the new commission coming forward with a pitfall net zero package once the new target is agreed. In our view, this should build on the current legislative approach with elements of national responsibility and strong European measures in all sectors. Ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, to sum up, we have achieved a lot. We need to get implementation done and smartly design the remaining miles on the road to net zero. I thank you for your attention and I look forward to the discussion. Thank you so much for the presentation. I just had a very quick follow-up question because given that we're not in Germany, but you are obviously working in the German ministry, and this is an important ministry, by the way, in the coalition, I wonder, however, if you could explain to us just to get a better sense, what is the mood when it comes to this issue in the German society? I wonder too, in the German industry is very powerful. In the past has been critical as a measures. What is the mood now? What kind of understanding do you have from the business community? And is there anything that they ask out of you and European legislation at a moment of such big changes? Well, I think we have just also presented and adopted a new climate program for Germany, where we defined the measures how to achieve all 2030 targets. And we've got a lot of positive response to this. And what has been stated in the discussion here in this afternoon already can also be observed in my country. Industry and society, they are prepared to move forward to more ambitious targets, but what they need is predictability and a clear pathway how we can achieve this. And that is, will be, I think, the discussion in the upcoming months and weeks and months, how we can further develop the pathway after 2030, in which way we have already the targets in our German National Law for Climate Action, as I refer to 88% by 2040. So our society is prepared to go the way in this direction, but we also have to discuss the concrete measures, especially for the path after 2030. Well, thank you for that. And we'll go into that in a second. Before, to say we talked about next year, you also mentioned the communications that the commission is expected to put out, and that would fall on the Belgian presidency, rotating presidency of the European Union. So Ambassador, are you ready for it? Are you excited? Are you looking forward to working on it, or do you go, we better get going already? Thank you for having me here. You hear me? Yeah. I tend to say to everybody these last days that we are ready already now, so to take over from Spain, but I think they are doing a terrific job. So I'm happy to wait a little bit more. I think a lot has been said already. Obviously, as an incoming presidency at the end of a legislature, we will have the difficult task to, I would say, introduce this issue, because as we heard from the commission, the proposals or the communication will come in January. We start in January, and maybe a legal proposal will be tabled during our presidency, because I think it's six months after the stock taking that this should be done in the framework of the climate law. So we expect, of course, to have maybe a legal proposal, but anyway, we know that we will have the discussions launched with this communication. And so we prepare to organize the discussions as an honest broker, I would say. And we expect the discussions not to be easy, because the situation, obviously, is what it is. I think you ended with words like feasibility, just transition. There was a word said about implementation in Germany of all our countries. We are now implementing a lot that has been decided during the past legislature. So doing all this together is really a challenge, and having serene discussions in a pre-electoral situation is also a challenge. So we are ready for that, because we are convinced that we need to take the further steps in the transition, but it is not an easy task. I would say, I think the drivers in this have been already said around this table. Much is about feasibility and just, it is we have to implement huge things. Huge things. If you think about housing, for instance, the efficiency directive, the energy efficiency directive, this will cost enormous amounts of money to our households. If you take all the other measures that are to be taken now, it needs a lot of infrastructure, a public infrastructure, but also a lot of investments in our industry. And so money is necessary, and I'm not sure when we compare to other parts of the world. Yes, I fully agree. The green deal is a growth strategy, is conceived as a growth strategy, is something which will bring together our transition and our economy and the social acceptability. But the amounts of money that are needed by public, by private sector are so big that it's really not easier when you compare to the United States, to China. It's also always difficult, I think, to do that, because when Europe is not comparable, as such, we have the European Union, you can't compare the budget of the European Union to the national budgets of the United States or China. So we need our member states and the budgets of our member states, and that's what's happening. If you compare what the member states are putting in it and our households and our industries, then you reach amounts that maybe get to what happens elsewhere, but it asks a lot of effort. So I think we will have a difficult period ahead, also with the elections. I think populism has been cited. It's not only populism that is a danger. I think we need to explain what we are doing and what is needed, and so there is a huge task for our parliamentarians, our public figures, for a presidency to try to convince the people ahead of the elections. And you made very good points, and later perhaps we'll get into more of a political discussion mentioned, a topic, an issue that comes up repeatedly, which is if you have all of those big ambitions, you need the money to back it up. Otherwise it seems like forgive the expression, but it's a lot of pie in the sky, it's difficult to sell, and it's not feasible. So I wonder, do you believe, again, going back to your presidency, that there's also going to be inevitably a discussion about is the European budget fit for purpose? I mean, you've talked about so many different things. I mean, climate is just one aspect. I mean, do you think they go in conjunction? I think, again, a lot has been done, I think these last years, and the consciousness that it takes a lot of money is there, and only the three letters, I, R, A have been used by everybody to put it in, to make it clear. And so a lot is going on. A lot of instruments are being proposed also by the commission. These instruments, with all respect, are not enough. What we get now is not enough. It's an effort. I think you all know the step, or even the electricity reform, the electricity market reform is also with a purpose of making this transition easier. So a lot of different aspects of our policies have been triggered to bring some more money in the system for the transition. So this is really good. But, well, the next commission will have the revision of the MFF. Maybe this is something more interesting because we need fundamental efforts, more efforts than actually I see for the moment. It's a very interesting point because you hear this repeatedly, and not just this issue, but many other discussions that ultimately will take much more. I wanna go back to Germany because to some extent, money, Germany at times is not a problem. So this transition, however, will require from the German government, well, a lot of political consensus. I wonder if you still believe that is the case. Some say it has been tarnished over the past year, and you see that reflected in some of the polls. And at the same time, you're gonna have to work very closely with some of your industries, which at this time, they also seem to be struggling. So I wonder, Mr. Wedke, what is the maybe long-term optimistic case for the German economy as you look to 2040 because the situation may be difficult now, but we're talking about 15 years down the line. In your view, what is the optimistic take on things in the next 15 years, which if you do what you say you want to do, it's going to be a huge transformation for this economy? Yes, he can. And I think you're muted. We thought it was a difficult question. There were some problems with the muting, but well, yes. Firstly, let me say that on the one hand, the German government invests a lot of money, the revenues from the European trading system are used in order to bring the important changes in industry to give incentives for these changes with regard to decarbonizing industry, for example. We have also the special rules concerning the transition of the energy system that we want to achieve 65% for electricity and renewables in 2030. And so in our perspective and we can see that also the increase of the ETS and the growing role of the ETS in the next years will show that investing in climate friendly technologies will be fruitful for the companies. And therefore we also have the key problem that we have is to bridge in the next three, four, five years the energy costs for energy intensive industries, but when we will have lower costs for energy production, energy consumption together with the incentives that we give in our climate and traditional funds to the companies, we are quite optimistic that in the upcoming years and especially in the 30s we will have these technological steps forward in order to be able to achieve at least the target that we have in Germany already since 2021 for 2040 and this will be I think a very important contribution to the European target for 2040 but also a very important contribution to the of our German economy to the European economy on the way of decarbonizing always all kinds of production. It's very interesting. So you say if I understood it correctly it's gonna take a three to four year transition but the benefits will be obvious by 2030. Yes, definitely that is our prediction. So again, it's talking about this idea of a timeline. We're gonna go over to the second part of the panel but before is there anyone who has any questions from the audience who wants to put them to our speakers? This is the time to do it. If not, I can continue on and on. Well, let's go to the, don't be shy. It's good to do the questions. So maybe for the second part. And again, as I said, now we're gonna move into our second part. As I said before, we are joined also by the CEO Axiona Megan from Coca-Cola is also here and we're also joined by the MEP Nista who I missed you at the start because you were on your way. Sorry, I rushed you a little bit, but now you're here. And in fact, now let me put the first question to you in fact, we talked about the potential new commission, the new parliamentary elections maybe the mood and the public changing or maybe not. I wonder however, because I've thought about this question a lot. This summer it was obvious that there are climate episodes that are not normal. If you wanna have proof of some of this major issues that we talk about, you literally had them in front of your eyes and in July and August. But I was surprised that on a European level, we didn't really see a pickup for the greens in a lot of national polls. How do you change that? And what explains that? Because to me was the most curious thing out of this. Or could it be that now you don't just represent climate that everyone has jumped on the cost? Maybe. Unfortunately not. So yeah, do you want me to answer to that or make my broader comments to start with? Make your introduction remarks and hopefully an answer too. Yeah, well, I think we are at the face in the development of our societies and the progress of climate change where there are kind of like, it's very clear from the scientific viewpoint that we are already living in an age of climate and environmental instability. So the times that we have been used to are past. They are there in history and people take different strategies to react to this change. And a lot of it is still denial. It's about trying to reconnect with, hoping that we can continue with the economic models that we had in the 90s or early 2000s. And the right answer for politicians is not to write the populist wave and try to support those feelings. The right answer is to try as politicians to be responsible and show people that progress can be possible at this time and age as well and that progress will deliver better jobs, better living standards, better environment for us, but we need to change a lot. The change that is facing us in the next 10 to 15 years is on a scale of the industrial revolution and it's a lot faster than at that time. So this is what we have to realize and it's not just the green change, but it's also the digital change. Let me start by saying also when I was minister of the environment for Finland 10 years ago when this green growth partnership was formed, it was actually in the ministerial council, let's say it was very active in this the British minister at that time. I hope the UK government is still very progressive in their climate policies as they were 10 years back because in this cooperation, we will definitely need them. But at that time when Finland joined also the coalition, I was pushing for 55% emission reduction for 2030 at EU level and colleagues in our cabinet, other ministers in my own government said that, Wille, you are crazy, you are driving jobs and the industry is away from Finland and how you can do that. And you can't say a lot of these things because it will make investors uncertain. Just think about the change of narrative in the last 10 years. Now the business community in Finland is pushing for higher ambition than politicians in general. We have major investment coming to Finland on an industrial investments that are larger that we've had since 1950s if you compare the size of the GDP. So the business community investors are seeing that the economic paradigm is shifting. And this shift in the last 10 years is already so big that if we think 15, 20 years ahead, I think we can achieve a lot more than many politicians and many people understand nowadays. And the real problem for me is no longer business communities or investors or innovation. I think we have the technologies and the capabilities to be carbon neutral more or less within 10 years actually if we would have just a political capability to create a systemic shift. We are lacking that political capability so the problem are the politicians. And politicians react to pressure from citizens and the citizens feel worried. If they are worried, a lot of the citizens will easily turn to populists who say that we don't need to do that. We'll just go back to what we had 10 years ago and we'll protect that for you. Let me tell you how that happened. We have big industry in Finland which used to be a big industry, not big on an international level but 5% of Finnish energy consumption. This big industry in the early 2010s was already looking like something that when the ETS prices are going up we knew that as they create the missions at the level of coal that this will be economically non-viable in the 2020s. How many politicians said that this will happen? I think I was the only one. As the minister of the environment I was saying we should not invest into feeds anymore because this will be lost money. The investors will lose their money in 10 years. This will not be viable. The smart thing to do is to start to scale it down now with a progressive plan and invest in sustainable renewables instead. What did the other politicians do? Those who say they protected those jobs, they said that we will promise that the peace industry will go forever on and invest more, invest more. And what happened in the late 2010s, so 2019, there was a huge disaster in the peace industry because of the rise in the ETS price. All investment in the last 10 years totally lost. The investors and the owners of the companies were angry at politicians who promised that this will be viable in the future. They made all those investors mean the 2010s when we all knew that it was ridiculous. Why did they do that? Because politicians promised that we will protect you. And who they blame? Well, they blame those politicians as well but they turn into populist who promise we will protect you even more. This is the narrative problem that we have that politicians need to be brave enough to tell that to protect the jobs that are important for you we need to have this transition. We need to make it in a way where we create you economic livelihoods on the countryside in the rural regions, in agriculture, in forestry, in all sectors. There is no brown sector, no green sector, everything can become green. We just need to create a paradigm shift where you are on board in this transition to protect your jobs. And this is where the politicians are lacking courage. Usually the ministerial council, I know that the Belgian presidency has a difficult task ahead but usually the ministerial councils are functioning in a way where everybody goes to protect their own service interest. So Germany protects coal a bit more than needed. Eastern European countries are protecting something of their own like gas or oil. Estonia is protecting oil as well. Finland was protecting peat in the past. The Nordics are protecting forest industry even in scientific terms in a way where carbon sinks are going down. I think we all need to stop that and we need to look at the common interest in creating rules where the marketplace will be progressive for all sectors. So new innovation will create bioeconomy that is more sustainable, that can create long-term jobs and that we stop protecting production methods and consumption methods that we know are lacking sustainability already in the next few years. And there is no government in Europe who has 100% record on being honest about this. I know that Finland is not that, Germany is not that, sorry, my German greens were friends but nobody else is that either. So we all need to try to come together to try to find the maximum common nominated, the maximum outcome and not the minimum outcome when we negotiate with each other. So when it comes to 2040 targets I think the key is to realize and I think the corporate leaders are realizing it already. Many of the progressive corporate leaders are saying that we should look at at least 90% emission reductions in order to have a 2040 target to start with that will hold that we don't do as we did in 2030 when I proposed 55% the others said that's too much we'll go for 40 and we ended up in 55 in 10 years later which means less good planning less foresight, less economic incentives and less market-based solutions and kind of like reacting to what happens and doing wrong things in the beginning like the peat industry stuff I mentioned. And that means that the 2040 target should be scientific to start with. It has to be about a circular economy approach. So we have to realize that we can't try to greenwash mining industry and say that, oh, now we are just creating this new car batteries and we just continue using virgin resources like we did in the past. Also recycling, resource efficiency, material efficiency, consuming different things in a more sustainable way, more digitally. We have to change the way mobility works. We have to change the way how living works. We have to change the way how warming works. So we just don't change the thing that goes into the energy system, to the pipeline, the actual fuel. We change the whole way our economy works. I know this is difficult, but the gains are huge because that means that we will be digital leaders, European companies will be digital leaders if our public procurement, our communities, our municipalities will turn into digitalization. We will save a lot of money when we turn into led lights in our communities and so on. So I think the key is to make this a transition that thinks about carbon sinks, agriculture, forestry. So we have to create a paradigm where it's economically viable in the marketplace to increase the sinks. We have to make this about circular economy and then we have to do this also in the traditional way as emission reductions. The greens are pushing for 100%. I think it's possible if we increase sinks as well. 90% is the minimum to start the discussions with and I'm happy that Sefkovic and Hextra actually promised that they are looking at something like a scientific place at least 90% in the Discommissions preparation for the next commission's target. I think that's a good start because the hearing in the parliament made them give this pledge and I think that that's a good start for the discussion. Thanks. Now they filled the heat, that's for sure. There's a question for you, but I will put it after because you said in your presentation, we need to also hear from the business community and the corporate side of things to get to that milestone. Luckily we have two voices in this panel. Before, let's go first to Madrid though, for a second. Where we're joined by the CEO of Accionage, he's called Rafael Mateo Alcalá. This is a huge Spanish company in the sector and I wonder, sir, based on everything that you heard, the big plans but also the idea that you need to work with the public and the government and your own plans, how do you see this overall from a corporate perspective as a company stepping into 2040? Hey, good afternoon. Can you hear me and see me? Okay, thank you very much. First of all, I'd like to start my intervention by thanking the CLG and the Cambridge University not only for this invitation but also for the needs and the proposals in the report regarding the increased ambition in terms of emission reduction for the European Union which we are fully agree. The debates surrounding the 2040 targets presents the European Union in unique opportunity to demonstrate to the businesses and to the citizens and to the world that the climate action is not only the priority but it will remain at the heart of our political agenda for the next decades. Our future depends on the decisions in terms of energy transition that we make today and there is no more pressing concern that we need to transform the energy sector. This emphasis and sustainability represents not only an environmental imperative for all of us but also an opportunity for innovation and for economic growth. In Europe, we still continue to dwell on an important criticality. We are still depending on fossil fuels. We are addict, we have dependency and we don't have fossil fuels and even we are escalating our consumption of fossil fuels in 2022 is paradoxical but the imports amount almost 5% of the European GDP and for many reasons in 2023 the European Union imported record volumes of LNG coming from Russia. So, its dependence is the origin of the ongoing energy crisis together with the obvious effects of the climate change but both together they have generated an unprecedented social and political momentum and we need to do something urgent as a sector as the corporate in order to make a fast energy transition and we need to do the transition leaving definitively from this kind of energy fossil resources. This began with making wrong decisions basing the transition in a combustible in a fossil fuel that we didn't have a wrong decision to face out the consumption of fossil fuels and there from our point of view there are two approaches to the change of the patterns. One is a regulatory oblation and second is to create a favorable reward in economics and both have complementary economical signals and oblations setting a specific timeline to stop the investment in consumption of fossil fuels and establishing a market environment with a carbon pricing, higher carbon pricing in every sector as the main tool to create the demand and to avoid the use of fossil fuels. It may appear in the short term against the consumers but in the long term it based off the European Central Bank published recently a very interesting report on. Let's stop for a second because I don't think we can if you could just for a second while we fix the image that would be great just one second. The renewable sector has been facing many regulatory and financial challenges in the recent times which have emphasized the importance of aligning the ambitions in the environmental targets with the very attractive target opportunities in terms of business. It's necessary the importance of explaining to the society the energy transition in terms of the energy transition is creating local wealth fostering new industries and generating high quality employment opportunities. To achieve that is imperative that the workforce in Europe is prepared. Europe should start working on the net zero academy if we want to be successful implementing all the initiatives of the European green industrial plan. We had an advantage here in Europe in this regard because we were the pioneer in the renewable sector creating in Europe the wind industry and now we need to protect the wind industry because a Chinese turbine are coming in lower prices that the European wind turbines are coming to Europe. The wind power sector is going through a critical moment today and we must relay on it and promote to the sector to achieve our targets. The low-hanging fruit is very powering of the older turbines in order to increase the capacity by one and a half to two times increasing fast without the problems of social acceptance additional capacity. In fact, a successful energy transition should rely on multiple clean technologies. Let me say that the excessive three alliance of solar power can create during the specific hours our supply, curtailments or cannibalization of prices. So we need more wind. We need more wind, less solar and we need more wind coming from Europeans wind turbine generators. To address the future physical and economical future we need to do some actions and let me say first more technology planning not all the technologies are the same in terms of contribution to the sector. Wind is making a better contribution because it's wind is producing energy at night in winter and solar is producing very cheap electricity but just at the solar hours. So more technology planning, more green grid investment more storage, more pump storage, more hydro more batteries, more renewable solutions to provide more firmness in the system like biomass and all the things to promote the electrification to promote the demand flexibility to adapt the flexibility of the demand to the new generation profiles. If we move in this direction we will found a favorable investment environment that is not just critical to the commercial technology but even more essential for the emerging ones. More hydrogen, hydrogen, green hydrogen will present the promising opportunity for Europe to diversify the approach of reducing the emissions and contributing to the global decarbonization but we need to generate the demand. We are in the field of green hydrogen we are similar situation but where we were in wind 20 years ago the difference is that everybody was consuming electricity but not everybody's consuming hydrogen and we need to create the demand for the use and the consumption of the green hydrogen. That's clear that we are in phase very complex context but it's also true that the opportunities that we have in front of us are exciting to accomplish the ambitious target we can no rely on promises of a better future. We need stable regulation, less volatile regulation Europe and unique regulation which is a healthy investment. This is key, this is crucial. Climate change mitigation is not a cost, it's an investment. In fact, we have to pay now but we are paying now is a great premium for not being able of getting out of the burning fossil fuels. We need to continue with discipline prioritizing the needs of the environmental future generation, fostering the transition because the transition is a new economy. This is my view, thank you. What you said, we're addicted to fossil fuels and because we're addicted to fossil fuels we're staying in this crisis. That's what I thought was a very good quote. So it's your addiction that ultimately keeps you in perma crisis but I wonder however because you gave the contours of this. You said solar, you didn't seem to be that keen to me. You said green hydrogen, yes. You said more wind, I wonder from now to 2040 what does the best, cheaper, most efficient energy mix look like to you? That's a big question, the big money question. Well, we are looking for dependency and decarbonization for that all kind of renewals energy and a smart combination of all of them when hydro, pump storage, batteries, biomass, hydrogen all combination of the technologies in order to be independent not depending on the import of fossil fuels and all kind of technologies not emitting. That's clear that solar in the solar case we're importing panels from China and we are creating a very low prices but at summer, at big solar hours so we are creating the cannibalization of prices. Let me say that here in Spain we are seeing sometimes especially during the weekends that the price, the cost of the electricity or the price of electricity is nothing, is zero but the transition is a new economy and we need to create jobs, to create new salaries with no incomes, we can create salaries, we can create jobs. So the energy cost or the energy price for the consumers can't be zero, nobody can imagine that the petrol station are offering the product at zero price so it's the same case in the electricity. The prices, the result of the combination of technology offering to the consumers the product that they need that is local and clean energy at the hour, at the time, at the day where they need. So this is the combination. In our case, we are using all the clean technologies because there is no winner. It's technology is making an application to the carbonization and application to the independence. The combination is the optimal case. Thank you for that and on top of that there's a big conversation as to whether or not China abuses its position in a number of sectors. Some say even renewals may be studied. Now we're going to Megan Mitrovsky-Dale who is Director of Environmental Sustainability at Coca-Cola Euro-Pacific Partners. I wonder, there's been a lot of talk about companies, the corporate, the consumer, how do you attend to all of this but you do this on a daily basis. So what do you see and how does the road look like to 2040? Thank you and thanks very much for having me today. And I have to say being around this table has been very inspiring for me and the work that I do. So I'm really happy to be here. I work for Coca-Cola Euro-Pacific Partners. We are, if you don't know who we are, we're one of the world's largest Coca-Cola bottlers. We work in 29 markets globally, 13 in Western Europe. What does a bottler do? A bottler is the company that makes moves and sells Coca-Cola products around the world. And so because we're one of the largest bottlers, we take our responsibility to sustainability really seriously. We take a value chain approach. We don't just look at what we do in our own four walls. We look across what we're doing with our suppliers and all the way to how we deliver it to our customers. And we have a strong track record. We've done a lot of work over the past decade in particular. We're really proud that we're one of the first 10 companies to have set a science-based target back in 2015. We're members of EV100 and RE100 and we're members of the CLG. And we can see, even within our own operations, we can see our climate-related risks and we can see how they're impacting our own operations through droughts and floods in particular. And we know that the long-term success of our business and of our suppliers is going to be really dependent on how we respond to those risks. And that's why we've updated our science-based targets. So we haven't stayed static. We're focusing now on setting a net zero target out to 2040 and that is a target which is in line with climate science. So that means that it's aiming to reach a 90% reduction versus our 2019 baseline. And we also have a midterm target to reduce our emissions by 30% versus 2030. We know that those are not going to be easy targets to reach and so we're doing a lot of work in order to help reach those targets. So the first and most important thing is that we're working across all of our markets in all our functional areas and with our suppliers to set carbon reduction roadmaps from the bottom up. And we're working with our suppliers to get them to set their own science-based targets and switch to renewable electricity because that's going to be absolutely key. We're doing a lot of other work. We're working on investing in recycled content and in collection and reuse. We're making all of our manufacturing sites more energy efficient and shifting to using renewable electricity. We're shifting to non-fossil fuels across all of our distribution network, shifting our own car fleet. So all of our sales fans and trucks. We're shifting all of those over to EVs and we're making all of our cold drinks equipment. So all of the coolers or fountains that you use we're trying to make sure that those are more energy efficient. But we've done a lot of the work. I've spent the past six months doing mapping and building carbon roadmaps and looking and trying to figure out how we're going to get there. And we know that it's not going to be enough. It's not going to be enough to hit our 2030 target. It's not going to be enough to hit net zero by 2040. So we're going to need more help. We're going to need the support of legislators. And if I can just give you a couple of examples about how and why we need that help. So you know all the cold drinks equipment that we have like our coolers are found to machines. You may not know, but we've done a lot of work over the past decade to help reduce the emissions there. So we've put in LED lighting. We've put in EMS devices, which are the things that basically switch off the cooler when you're not using it. And more recently we've taken out all of the old coolers and put in new ones, like replacing an old fridge from 10 years ago, right? Boring stuff, but it's helped to reduce our emissions a lot, but that's not going to be enough. All of those coolers our emissions are sourced from the electricity that those coolers are plugged into at the car fours of the world, right? And if those customers of ours are on green electricity contracts, great, but if they're not, they're using not green electricity grids. And that's going to be difficult for us and for our customers to help reduce their emissions. It's also one of the most important things that our suppliers can do. One of the most important things that our suppliers can do to help reduce their emissions is shift to green electricity, which is why we've asked them to do it. But if they haven't done that, and if all of this sort of demand is going to be coming, we're going to need to make sure that there's a huge shift towards green renewable electricity in order to pull that forward. I'll give you another example. All of our products are delivered or the majority of our products anyway are delivered by third party transportation. So we contract out to other logistics providers to deliver our products out to stores. We've worked a lot again over the past decade to make sure that we're doing that in the most efficient way possible. We've got back hauling and front hauling agreements. What that means is that we make sure that the truck never drives empty. So there's always something in it. So there's no wasted miles. We're moving from road to rail. We're moving from road to boat. We are shifting to biofuels where possible. So we've got 100% HBO trucks in the Netherlands, for example. So we're doing all of this great work. Again, we know it's not going to be enough. We were going to need to do more. And one of the things that we're going to need is to make sure that we've got the right infrastructure and the right types of vehicles available to us. When I've been building all of these carbon roadmaps with the country teams, one of the questions that keep asking me is when can I get an electric truck? When can I get a green hydrogen truck? And I don't have an answer for them because quite frankly, the trucks that are available and the charging infrastructure that is available right now is not enough to deliver the distances and the payloads that we need to. And while green hydrogen may be a great hope for the future, it's not coming fast enough for us to be able to make that transition. So what I would say is what do we need from the EU? Well, I would fully support the call for a 90% reduction versus 1990 levels in terms of reduction. It's fully in line with what we're trying to achieve and it will definitely help us to reach our targets. I think we're going to need all of that in order to be able to ensure that we've got a fully circular economy for our packaging to make sure that we've got a shift to fully green grids and that we've got a full shift to non-fossil fuels. So yeah, that's what I would ask for everybody to do and I would just really ask that we... One, two, one, two. Start from the beginning or... Okay, we'll start from the beginning after that technical hitch. So this is the start of our second session, the Green Deal as a Compass for the EU's future competitiveness. My name is John Andrew and I'm a climate and energy reporter for Bloomberg News. So we've already touched upon the EU's 2040 goals, but how will the EU undertake its work in the next two decades in a way that doesn't harm its own competitiveness in a global world? We've already seen the US's Inflation Reduction Act, a package of billions of dollars to boost its own domestic green tech industry. Should the EU try and match that or does it have its own abilities like the single market so it can establish itself as a front runner over the next two decades? What technologies should the EU focus on? Should it be hydrogen, carbon capture, even nuclear? Or does it have others that we've not mentioned so far? In this session, we've paired up one policymaker with one business leader to see how the objectives of opportunities and climate goals match up. So without further ado, I'll introduce our speakers. We have Christy Klaas, Deputy Director General for the Green Transition at the Ministry of Climate in Estonia. We have Simon Hensel Thomas, Global Director of Climate and Nature at Inger Group, IKEA. We have Christoph Grudler, an MEP on the Committee of Industry Research and Energy, Renew Group Europe. We have Dr. Kimo Javanan, Head of European Governmental Affairs at Steelmaker SSAB. We have Ambassador Barbara Cullinan, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ireland to the EU. And we have Harry Vora, Head of Public and Government Affairs, Signify and Chair, Corporate Leaders Group Europe. So I'm going to take you two by two, a bit like Noah's Ark, and start with Christy Klaas. I believe you've got some opening remarks about how Estonia views the competitiveness question. Thank you. Yes, hello. It's working, good. Hello. Also from my side, I'm very glad to be here. Thank you for the invitation. And just to start, I thought I would set the scene a little bit to explain the background that Estonia is having at the moment and going through at the moment. So the green transition has been high in the political agenda for the past years, and especially it started in 2022 after the Russian aggression in Ukraine. Of course, it was, I think, the consequences that many countries actually had. First of all, there was a shock, but after that, many countries were working very hard to find solutions how to substitute fossil fuels with renewable energy. And this year, Estonia set a very ambitious goal. In the parliament, it's stated in the law that by 2030, it means in seven years, we will more than triple our renewable electricity production. So it means that 100% of our consumption, we will produce from renewable sources. I think it was one of the major steps. And of course, together with that one, a major legislative package was prepared in order to speed up the development of those renewable energy parks. During that year, also, the government adopted a green transition action plan, which was a clear framework. What do we need to do in all the policy fields in order to progress in terms of green transition? And maybe the last one, and the big decision, also was this year, actually, after the elections, when there was decided a separate Ministry of Climate was formed in terms of Estonia, it's huge. Under the responsibility of this ministry, fall around 90% of all greenhouse gases emissions. So it means that within the margins of one ministry, all those answers can be answered. All those questions can be answered that we need to do in order to reduce the emissions. And this year, also, we started the process of climate law, which has been asked by many, many businesses and industry so that we would have a clear regulatory framework in place that wouldn't change. So we feel that the timing is right. For all those clear actions, what we need to undertake in order to really achieve those ambitious targets that have been set. So what do the companies and industry need? Let's say, first of all, I would like to point out the need to cope with growing obligations. And maybe one of the things I would like to point out is related with reporting, with ESG reporting. And there, of course, we have had a lot of articles, also in the newspapers, where really companies are asking how they could cope with all those requirements that are put on the table. And there we see a clear, let's say, nexus with digitalization and with open data. For example, Estonia has a fully digitalized energy network, which means that all the energy data is freely accessible, freely available, which has enabled many startups and many companies to develop different solutions, how to reduce the consumption of energy and households in the industry. And all these kind of solutions actually are a great enabler also for greater and easier reporting. Then what I would point out that I think the next speakers also will point out is the need for clean energy, clean industry and enterprises pathways need to be in place. For example, let's say we have in Estonia the ability to produce CO2-free asphalt. And this has been the development just in recent years, which means that there has to be a clear interaction and cooperation with academia. First of all, we need to remove all the financing obstacles that there might be there in place. And plus, there needs to be a good cooperation between the government and the industry, because only then those pathways actually can be worked out cooperatively. And also, we can understand what kind of obstacles do we need to remove in order to, for example, enable to produce CO2-free steel or CO2-free asphalt, et cetera. Then avoiding greenwashing is also one of the aspects we are facing every day. There are companies who are very ambitious already. They have developed new products and services. And what do they feel is that sometimes in terms of competitiveness, it's difficult when the other companies are putting the labels on their products, which are not really based on true data. So Europe is working on that, of course, which is very good. And I think we should continue in this field. And finally, I think one of the great discussions that we will also have around climate law is that how we can spot the advantages that we have in this new economy. Every country is different. The size of every country is different. The industry, businesses are different. The geopolitical situation is different. But I would claim that every single country has their advantages. And whether it's production of clean energy, whether it's hydrogen, whether it's CO2-free asphalt or steel, whether it's CO2-free construction materials, every country can find their specific angle where they are strong and can benefit from the transition. And I think this aspect is important, because once the countries and businesses realize where the advantages actually are, then they are ready to act. Without this knowledge, it's very, let's say, challenging to move on with green transition in general. Thank you. Thank you very much. And Simon, I'd love to get the retail perspective here. Obviously, the EU is also moving towards a more circular economy. How can companies like IKEA adapt to that and what opportunities are there? Yeah, thanks, everyone. And thanks, Christy. I thought you made some fantastic points. So I work for Inca Group. So when you go into an IKEA store, nine out of 10 of them are run by Inca. So a franchise set up. I don't know when you last went to an IKEA store, but we have around a billion consumers going through the doors or on the internet now, online shopping as well. So that is an amazing opportunity for us as a company, but also a huge responsibility. And I think Kurt was saying on the first panel, the ability to influence behavior and influence those consumers is really quite a window, which we would love to open. And I'm going to talk a little bit about that. Firstly, I think it's important that a retailer does its own house and that we keep our own house in order. So why do we act on climate? And I was interested to hear from the lady from Coca-Cola bottling earlier on. I think we have a similar business case. So it's absolutely the right thing to do. We do it because customers and coworkers increasingly are asking for it. And maybe most importantly is because we see that the future economy will only be going in one direction. So we want to be on the right side of that climate transition by 2030, not on the wrong side. So yes, it's the right thing to do, but it is also going to be good for business to be taking action on climate and sustainability. I think just a few things. We're committed to 1.5, we're committed to the Paris Agreement. Some of you may not know, we actually invest heavily in renewables. So we have invested 3.5 billion today in wind and solar and we will up that to 6.5 billion by 2030. We've actually got more wind turbines than we have straws. So 594 wind turbines and we also have 22 solar parks. It's actually around four terawatts of energy, which is around 1 million EU households. So we're serious about investing in renewables, but we're also serious about influencing our customers. And I think the way we do that is by listening to them. And I wanted just to highlight a little bit on where we see that our customers are feeling about sustainability. So there was a Euro barometer survey in July, I think it said around three quarters of consumers care deeply about sustainability and climate, but people are increasingly not sure what to do. And also the action on climate is slowing down and the action on sustainability. We did a similar survey with around 33,000 customers with Globescan and we found exactly the same that over three quarters are very keen to take action, but people really are slowing down in terms of their agency. Fear is being replaced by apathy, unfortunately. And some of the blockers are not knowing what to do. Some of it is also around cost. So we find that consumers, yes, they wanted to take action, but they don't want it to cost more. They don't want to compromise on quality and they don't want to compromise on form or design. So this could be quite depressing, but it's also an amazing opportunity for us and other retailers that we really have that window to try and inspire consumers, to give them solutions, to give them products and services that they want so that they can take action at home. So it's both our own responsibility but also leading consumers also on that journey. Just wanted to say a couple of things on the policy dimension. Just came back from New York, I think a few of us were there at Climate Week. I was actually really proud to be a European in New York. I think that EU's doing some amazing things and mainly the sort of clarity on the regulatory framework is there. And I think that allows businesses to take action and to scale up. So that is a really clear signal. One example, I think we talk about circularity. IKEA is committed to being circular by 2030 and one of the barriers that we see is making sure we make the connection between circularity and net zero. So we will only become net zero by being circular and we need to invest in recycling in Europe. So we're investing in other technologies but we also want Europe to be a leader in recycling and to do that we need to start investing now. So I think one thing would be a clear ask not to under invest in recycling and not to be left behind by other parts of the world. One other example and then I finish, we mattresses are a big problem. So I don't know how many of you seen a mattress lying on the street looking a little bit dirty waiting to be thrown to landfill. So IKEA, we've now invested in a big mattress recycling company called Retour Mattress and it's doing really well. It manages to recover around 85% of the materials but one of the challenges we have is transporting material across bar borders within Europe. So in order to recover that material we need to be able to to recover that to transport it across borders. So one thing we would call on, we advocated for additional mattresses on the greenest of waste in the way shipment regulation and it's just one example where I think we can stimulate the circular economy through regulation linking it also with net zero. That's great, thank you. I just wanted to ask and questions are open to the floor as well. We have a microving round so do stick your hand up if you've got a question. But I did just want to ask both of you actually over the last couple of years with the green transition, the green deal. I mean, we've seen a deluge of rules coming from the EU governing a lot of different facets of consumer life. Do you think it's time for the commission to take a pause on the regulatory cycle or should it keep going with this momentum that it's already built up? I would encourage more speed actually. So I think definitely do not slow down. I think we've seen some great improves take renewable energy for example, I think some of the moves around making renewable energy permitting easier and faster has been fantastic. We still do see some gaps like I said in circular economy. So I think regulation is working. I think there is for me, not a red flag but a concern around driving too much bureaucracy particularly around reporting where I think we want to drive performance. We don't want to drive bureaucracy and some of the ESG regulation, there is a risk I think that we drive bureaucracy not action and performance. So it would be a lookout for me on ESG just to make sure we're driving the right behavior. I would hope that the next commission will keep the green transition high in the political agenda. And as we have started so well and now when we really businesses and the governments are thinking how to deliver on those goals, then we should have a clear vision also what will happen now in the longer term so that we would keep the agenda forward or keep the agenda alive. What I do feel is that there's a lot of discussion about ambition and setting goals and a bit less about how to implement all those goals. So I think the focus has been there really to find those obstacles on those barriers and remove them in a way that it would really help our companies and governments to achieve on those goals. So I think those two aspects need to be in place in parallel. Thanks. Maybe I can just add to that. I think we also see there's a handful of companies taking action now I would say the vast majority still need to move. So I think especially when you look at SMEs and other smaller retailers, we need to help them and give them regulatory certainty as well. So I think let's not be naive that everyone is acting and we're in line with 1.5 because we clearly aren't. So I think definitely don't take the foot off the gas. Excuse the pun. And Chrissie, I would just like to get an Estonian perspective on the question. We've seen the US come up with a huge package in the form of IRA. Where do you see the balance between the EU having to compete with the US while also national governments taking their own responsibilities? I think you put the question at the beginning also really well. So how should EU relate with the other parts of the world? I think the EU should be able to produce their own green technology as well. We cannot really rely on the abilities of other countries not only in terms of technology, but also in terms of resources, in terms of other critical raw materials. So we have to, I think the focus has been there so that we would be able ourselves to produce, to reuse, to use our own resources in a more valuable way. So of course the international cooperation is there and we will not forget about that. However, I think the focus has been our own abilities. Does anyone on the floor have a question at this stage? I'm hoping it's up. In which case we'll move on to our next duo of panelists and we'll come back to our first couple at the end of the session. Christoph Grudler, you represent the Renew Group in Parliament. You've worked on a number of files key to Europe's competitiveness, whether that's the Renewable Energy Directive or more recently the Net Zero Industry Act. How do you view this whole debate? Thank you very much. Good afternoon everyone. I'm very happy to say yes to your invitation which marks the 10th anniversary of the Green Growth Partnership. Well, it's a real pleasure for me. When I arrived at the European Parliament in 2019, the only goal was the Green Deal. And we have different issues, different problems. We have the COVID-19 crisis. We have the war in Ukraine. And of course it was clear difficulties, but it was also opportunities to accelerate on the Green Deal way. And that's what I try to do in all the texts I work in. We have 75 different texts on the Green Deal during this mandate, 75. Then I would like to say we need to accelerate. But if we have 150 texts, it will be very difficult. Just to have an example, I was a rapporteur on Red 3. It was a revision of the Renewable Energy Directive 2. And when we began Red 3, we have a lot of months of work. And during our work, we arrive at Red 4, 105. And when it was finished, oh, we have the EMD electricity market design, which arrives. We see if these on PPAs, it was supposed to be Red 6. But we say, oh, stop. Now let's finish our texts. And well, maybe one week before we finish the text on Red 3, the commission, the tech is Delegated Act about Red 2. It was 2018, five years later. Then we have to accelerate. But we have to be sure that all our texts are taken into account in all the aspects. Because if you run without the Delegated Act, without a clear application for the industrial way for all the stakeholders, it will be a mistake. But with 75 texts, I think we were able to do a clear, good job. Maybe I can say something about my new text about the Net Zero Industrial Industry Act, NZIA, as we said, when I am the reporter from my political group. It's a new regulation in terms to deeply transform Europe by reducing, of course, our carbon emissions while remaining competitive. And this is very important because we can have a goal for carbon emissions. But without being able to be competitive, then it will fall. I do believe that sustainability and competitiveness need to be in hand. I do not oppose them. It is quite the contrary, I can say. I actually prefer talking about competitive sustainability. I think it's maybe the best warning that we can use, which is the ability of the European industry to engage investments in necessary innovations to first engage its transition to sustainable development and then establish itself as a frontrunner in the global race of clean technology development. We know that China, India, and the US are part of this race. And Europe needs to take the lead in the clean tech revolution. Europe has the full potential to take this lead. And NZIA completely goes in this direction. You can consider it as a response to the Infection Reduction Act of the US, which for me was already an answer to the Green Deal. Be careful. Europe was first on it, and it was very important. And to show the way to the world for me, it's something very important. With NZIA, we intend to facilitate the manufacture in Europe of solar panels, wind turbines, water turbines, or part of nuclear reactors, for example. Because it's about clean technology. It's not only renewable technology. And I think both are going together as it was written in the Commission text in 2018 was for a cleanest Europe. As I remember the name, it was written that we need, of course, a lot of renewable on a small part of nuclear technology 10% or maybe 15% in order to be sure to succeed on the Green Deal way. So with those technologies, we want to promote in NZIA all the possibilities to have clean renewable on decarbonized energy. We can say it is a key text for climate action, but also re-industrialization, energy sovereignty on European tech autonomy. Usually, I don't use the word sovereignty because it's not the best, I think. The best is maybe strategic autonomy. Strategic autonomy, it means to have our destiny if in our own hands when you have a COVID crisis or a war in Ukraine, when the borders are closed, we need to be able to have our energy, to have our own electricity. You know that we are funding at 64% of imports in the European Union. Then if we promote sustainable renewable energy, for example, it's also good for our autonomy. It's good for climate, but it's good also for our strategic autonomy. Then maybe two things that I want to say at the end of this short to be carbon neutral by 2050, but also not to create new dependencies. It's the principle of strategic autonomy. To do so, two things need to be done. First, to simplify the regulatory framework for industries. And second, to push for buying our European clean technologies. These goals are what we are trying to do with ZIA because producing clean technologies in Europe is a good idea. But if our public markets don't buy European technologies, we won't have won anything with the NZIA. We have today the opportunity to massively support our European industry sector. Then in order not to be too long and maybe you will have a question, I think, I can say our industry needs massive investment to resist the Sierra and Coal, we can say of the American Inflation Reduction Act. The main problem today is that it's a good answer that we have, but without money. I think maybe it's a problem. Then we try to have funds with a step, with different possible sovereignty funds, et cetera. ETS revenue, well, we try to find solutions to have a lot of money to help our industry. And instead of reacting, the member states are too shy, in my opinion, and are not willing to put money on the table. It can also help. It's not only Europe alone, but it's also with the member states. So I will conclude with some words for the business leaders present today. Come building clean factories in Europe. We have the know-how, we have the skills, we have the technologies, and we have the market, which is going to boom. Thank you. Thank you very much, Christof. And we're very lucky as well to have Dr. Kimo from SSAB. Steel is obviously going to be one of the hardest sectors to abate during the transition. How can Europe stay ahead in that race? Yeah, thank you, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all of you joining us today. It's a lovely afternoon, quite sunny also. And I'd love to be here to tell you the story about the carbon-free steel. And as Mr. Goodler was rightfully pointing out, we need the steel also to be produced here in Europe in order to support the energy equipment, the production of energy equipment, which are also going to be carbon-free or emission-free. This is very important. I have here a couple of slides. And first of all, SSAB wants to be in the forefront of transforming the future steel industry. We think we are. And I will explain to you how we are going to do it and we are actually following exactly what the MEP Goodler was here saying, we are trying to do it in Europe and specifically in Newdecks. Here you can see sun rising. I'm not saying that the sun rises from Sweden and Finland, but the future of the steel indeed rises from Sweden and Finland with our technologies. We have already a long time ago, almost 10 years ago, we made a decision, the board of SSAB, the owners made a decision that we will become carbon-free within the next. At that time, we were thinking 2045 because the Swedish carbon neutrality target is 2045. But then Finland said we want to be carbon neutral 2035 and then came all of the political, proposals, political incentives. And we actually within SSAB, our leaders decided that actually we will want to become carbon neutral 2030. And in doing so, they will set the target, the goal for all other steel industry. I want to point out this fact because there is at the moment no other steel producer who has the similar goals and who has done already what we have done in the sense of forming partnerships with our customers. These customers who you see here, the names of which they are already receiving our first lots or first trial, lots of carbon-free steel. And they are experimenting that steel, they are using it in their production. And this is, I think, very important message that we as SSAB, together with actually EU legislators, the institutions want to send to everybody that it can be done, it can be done. And what we are doing is not only the steel and not only supplying the steel to our customers, but we are also using the Nordic iron ore. So we are not importing iron ore anywhere else. We are using the Nordic energy and we will be producing the hydrogen in the Nordics. So whether you like it or not, but we will be in this respect in carbon-free steel, we will be self-sufficient in Europe. And that is something that not very many can claim. It supports the resilience. I also, as a Fin, I don't like so much of the sovereignty word, I agree with the MEP here, but none of the less the fact is that with this project that we are putting in place investments, which we are putting in place, we will be self-sufficient or resilient if you wish. And in the past, I had to tell you that we were importing iron ore from Russia. We were importing coal from Russia and from many other places in the world. Now in the future, it will not be needed. And that is the business case. That is the nice business case that we are establishing. As a company, we also think that, and we have noticed lately that this investment that we are putting in place has also several other social and environmental impacts, apart from the fact that we will have a competitive edge and apart from the fact that we will be able to lower our emissions. All together, the emissions to air will be lowered, which means that the air is healthier to breathe and there are less contamination by the human beings, which is a very good important social aspect. Improved energy efficiency. We have found out that with this new technology, the energy efficiency is better than with the old existing technology. Reduced emissions to the water. That is also a blast because there are no really pollutants emitted to the water. Increased use of recycled raw materials. That's what we will be doing. Faced out of hazardous materials. Value added to Nudix, this time Nudix clean energy. Value added to hydrogen. New and modern skills. Our people, our employees will have to actually, they will have to learn new skills. And when a person learns new skills, his value in the labour market goes up. It is a substantial benefit for the people who are working for us. And we like that. Land use. We are building out these new sites or new plants to existing sites. It's a brownfield investment, which means that we are improving the existing site environmental performance significantly. And yet, at the same time, we don't have to go to green fields. We don't have to take land from other uses because we have the sites there. And end of dependency on the imported coal and also other raw materials. So, ladies and gentlemen, I hope this story... First of all, one thing I have to tell you, and this is something I always tell in Brussels. 2016, when our CEO, Marty Lindquist, came to Brussels and he told the Brussels scene, including the colleagues, the competitors, that this is what we will do. Can you guess what was the reaction? Can you guess what was the reaction in 2016 when we told that we will do this? Nobody believed. And I tell you, nobody believed. I was in a meeting where he told this and the colleagues were saying, this cannot be done. It's impossible because it's financially not possible. Technically, it's not possible. And also from a raw material point of view, because at that time, we didn't know where the hydrogen will come from. And what is happening today? Do you know what is happening today? Everybody, all of the steel producers in Europe have the same kind of proposals. Even South Koreans have said by 2050. Even the Japanese have said by 2060. But we are saying 2030. I hope you realize how big of a time difference there is between 2030 and 2050. So we are leading. I say we are leading and we hope to be leading in the future. And we hope to set encouraging example of all of you who are doubting that whether this should be done or not. Thank you. You're leading, Kimo, but do you ever look at the US with envy? And what's on offer? Yes, we have, God, there's always competition. And then we like the free world. There is always competition in this world. And part of the competition is always also the framework the legislative framework under which each of us, whether it's the US or whether it's the Japanese, South Koreans have to work. That is for sure. It will never go away. Some of you may not believe that I'm an old man and I've been around for 30 years and I've never seen a business which doesn't have a competition. I mean, I was even doing business in the Soviet Union in the old days. And even within the Soviet Union, you have a competition. It's a different kind of competition, but there is a competition. I will not tell you what kind of competition that is because it's probably not appropriate, but there is a competition. So my response is yes, we are very much, very much surprised of the inflation reduction act. We are very much surprised of how Chinese are able to poor state money today development. That's a matter of fact and that's life. But when I was doing sales, the number one rule is when you are in South Africa or wherever in Babwe is that you do as you do in that country, you have to adapt. There is no other way. And I know and I know that our institutions, they are actually doing quite good work. There are several instruments we have been lucky enough to enjoy innovation funds report and just transition funds report. So it's not that this is a desperate place to do business. I mean, it's not the desperate place. We have some hopes, but maybe I come later on those months, but as always, there is room for improvement. There we go. It's not a desperate place to do business in the EU. Does anyone have a question from the floor? Yes, I see one over there. Gentleman in the middle. If you could introduce yourself as well, that'd be great. Thank you. Yes, my name is Martin Porter. I'm the executive chair of CRSL Europe based in Brussels with colleagues here and I advise CLG Europe. I'm so provoked to say things given the excellent presentations we've had, not just the last two, but all four of them actually. And I think one of the interesting questions that we've just heard from Kimo that comes up is at what point will it be proven that your first mover risk has turned into a real advantage? Because as you said, it's very competitive, but it looks as if you've got ahead of the game from what you're saying. So that's a really interesting question looking forwards and it obviously depends on some of the support that you would have in Europe, exactly as you said in terms of regulation and the framework that you're working within. But I'd like to come back to what Christof said and maybe then Christo as well, because you referenced competitive sustainability, which we've heard a couple of times already today. And I think it's an under leveraged part of the EU strategy for the Green Deal to deliver competitiveness. The commission has its strategy of competitive sustainability since 2019 as well. And the basic idea behind that was that it would promote investment in innovation through regulations in the single market to create demand, drive innovation. And actually the SSIB example is probably a very good illustration of that. But we still don't really measure that very well. So Christof, one of the challenges to you, and this is something we've been looking at, we're still trying to use measures of competitiveness, which are rooted essentially in what we did in the 20th century, not what we are now trying to do in the 21st century. And they need to be updated if we're really going to be forward-looking, I think, with respect to our future competitiveness. But linked to that, you also said, obviously you're working on the Net Zero Industry Act, and that's part of the Green Deal Industrial Plan. Which was a reaction to the US, to some extent China, and has been welcomed, but is clearly not sufficient on its own to the scale of the challenge, as you also said. There are problems maybe in terms of its breadth, how it's targeted, the money, the funding that goes with it. So I guess a question to both you and to Christof is do you now see a realistic prospect that the EU develops a genuine, ambitious European industrial strategy that fully aligns with the European Green Deal and the strategy of competitive sustainability that is more than the sum of the parts? So not just each EU country having an industrial strategy, but a European industrial strategy capable of confronting China, the US, and others. Should we start with Christof on that one? Yeah, I will start. You're right, and the IE is not the alpha and omega of all, it's clear that it's one tool that we have a lot of different tools. We know that we fully believe with Commissioner Breton on the alliances, alliances for clean hydrogen, alliances for batteries, et cetera, et cetera. We have a lot of these alliances which are an agreement to have state aids in the country we're able to, to help directly the industry. It's always a problem for me, the alliances, because I prefer to help all the countries around Europe and maybe in the future mandate, we can say, I will try to promote the idea that the alliances will not only say okay to state aids, but also put European money inside because if you put European money, the countries were not able to have state aids can touch this money. Just an example, thank you very much for producing hydrogen in Europe. It's very important because I fully support the production of hydrogen in Europe. Good for strategic autonomy, good for the climate also because we are not to transport hydrogen all around the world. I think it's very important. But you know, we have another tool which is a bank of hydrogen which helps the producer of hydrogen to have a cheapest price of production. You know that with IRA, the Americans say, we can give three euro for one kilo of hydrogen produce with the hydrogen bank, we will go to four euro to help for a kilo of hydrogen produced in Europe. Then of course, it's global competitiveness, but it's not let the market alone. It's to push, to promote. We need to have a market on hydrogen, but first, if we don't put public money inside, it will never start. That's the reason why we have a lot of different tools. We are not alone in the part of the world. This will be in a partnership. We can have a very good relation with the partners we want to promote, of course. But first, let's have our destiny in our hands. And after, of course, we can have a lot of, we have a lot of understanding, as we say, with a lot of countries, with a lot of companies all around the world. But first, let's know what we want to be in the future. We want to be an industrial continent. We want to have youth. We want to have skill. We want to have money, finance in Europe. Then we have to take it all into account in order to succeed for the future and for the next generation. Christo, are you, yeah. Actually, those aspects that Christo pointed out are also seen from the side of member state. I think without having this collaboration and those alliances across Europe, we will never achieve this competitiveness that we are looking for. Because not every country, it's not meaningful to have their own, I don't know, industry, I don't know how to reuse the recycled mattresses or how to produce carbon-free steel, et cetera. So there needs to be a clear understanding, a clear framework, let's say, the framework to how to form those alliances in order to be able to cover all those aspects that need to be there in order to have this new economy in place. Because there is a huge number of green technologies that need to be developed, a lot of new materials, new resources, et cetera. So just to keep the balance there also that the over-consumption of over-production in comparison with all the needs that we have. So there needs to be really a good collaboration among industries, countries, businesses, et cetera. And Kimo, I'm actually interested in that first mover question because obviously we've seen in history in the EU with solar panels, for example, that the EU had the first mover advantage there and lost it. I mean, how do we prevent that from happening again? That is a tough one because basically the rule of the world is that quite often the first movers are not the ones who are making the best money out of the inventions. The only recipe, I think the only recipe to avoid that is to run faster than the others, to be more effective and to be competitive, to acknowledge the fact that competitiveness is a key to the success also in terms of environmental performance. We feel, and now of course I'm subjective, my view is subjective, but we feel that we have all the ingredients that are needed to continue to be the first mover in this sector. There are some things that are difficult to buy, not impossible, but difficult to buy with money. And I think we have some of those ingredients and one of the important ingredients ingredient is that we have the already today, almost I think it's 1995% CO2 free energy. It's already there today, so we don't have to build it in the future. We already have it. We already have the skills and the basic know-how how to do steel that is there. We have to retrain the people, but anyhow we have it because of we have the quite nice energy balance, we have the energy to produce the hydrogen in Nulix. We have water resources, we have land, we have even the iron ore, which is important part ingredient. So I would say that if you look at the map of Europe or if you look at the map of any part of this world, I think there are very few places which has all those ingredients for steel production. Plus an important plus is that Swedish and Finnish manufacturing industry and you saw the names and there are Volvo's, there are Konecranes, Konecranes and others to shipbuilding. It is also very strong in this world. So if these people who are using our steel, if they want to be and if they want to use carbon free steel, it is manufactured next to their own backyard. So they don't have to go far away to find it. So we feel that we are quite, what is the right correct word? We are not very clever if we are not able to capitalize on all these benefits that we have, but you are right, the competition is tough. And as always, there are competitors who are and who will have probably some other advantages. I think the biggest advantage and biggest threat that we see is the raise for the state-aid subsidies. And this is an important point because suddenly if you are able to build a two or three billion euro steel plant without basically your own money, it is an advantage, it is definitely an advantage. But even with those monies, you also have to have all the ingredients in place. Great, and we'll definitely come back to that at the end of the session about the subsidy question. But I'd like to move to our last couple now, Ambassador Barbara Cullenen. You are responsible for negotiating many of these files as they come through the EU. What's been your experience? And obviously it's not just the big companies that matter here, it's also the small and medium-sized enterprises. Yeah, thanks very much, John. And in fact, what I'd like to say really picks up on what we've just been talking about here with Christoph and Christie and indeed Kimo as well, because we very much believe in Ireland that if we're going to have a more sustainable and more competitive Europe encompassing the opportunities of clean and renewable technologies, then we have to build on our strengths. And for us, the success of the European model has been based on firstly our openness and our extensive external trade links. And I think that's really, really important. The second thing has been the business-friendly ecosystem that we have created in Europe. And then thirdly, our great strength is the single market and the level playing field. So we believe that by striking the right balance in competitiveness and sustainability can be strengthened without compromising these fundamental principles. And these are fundamental principles that have a proven track record in terms of ensuring and securing European economic prosperity. And the decisions that we make today, they will set the path towards a decarbonized industrial age, but we have to manage the risks associated with increased climate action. And we believe that these risks are particularly acute for SMEs. And I think this is the point Simon touched on earlier. And SMEs are very much the backbone of the European economy, and that's certainly the case in Ireland. But the risks that we see include lack of access to finance, to implement actions, to reduce emissions and to increase energy efficiency. Another potential risk is the lack of skilled workers, because if we don't invest in green skills in the EU, we're not going to be able to deliver on the opportunities in terms of employment growth, and it won't be possible to meet our climate targets. And then a less obvious risk, but nonetheless still a risk, particularly for smaller and time poor companies and startups is the increase in the volume and complexity of corporate reporting requirements arising from the green transition. And again, this is something I think that both Christie and Simon have touched on. So we need to ensure that these requirements are proportionate and that they're streamlined and that we're supporting companies to navigate this landscape. In terms of the Green Deal Industrial Plan, it does cover all these areas and Member States are going to have to prioritize them. In the case of Ireland, decarbonization and net zero commitments are central elements of our White Paper and Enterprise to 2030, which was published last December. The White Paper aligns broadly with the ambitions of the Green Deal Industrial Plan and the puts decarbonization and climate change at the heart of industrial policy. And our enterprise policy has been oriented to ensure that Irish firms, that first of all that they're supported in meeting the cost of decarbonization and secondly that they're positioned to exploit the opportunities of the low carbon economy. So we're supporting enterprises to become leaders in related innovations. We're focused on business model transformation, on resource circularity and the development of the bio economy to promote sustainable practices and enterprise beyond carbon targets. In terms of our policy approach, under our program for government, Ireland has committed to reducing emissions by 51% by 2030 across the economy and to net zero by 2050. And this is enshrined in a 2021 piece of legislation. In addition, Ireland has sectoral emission ceilings and these prescribed five year carbon budgets that are divided amongst different sectors of the economy. And over the next decade, we believe that this transition to the carbon neutral economy is going to substantially alter the business environment, but we're convinced that a strategic approach will enable Irish businesses to take advantage of the opportunities and to grow and to thrive. So, but government and industry are going to have to work closely together, a point Simon made. And I think that has been covered by Kristoff also that we're going to have to work closely. Government together, government is going to rely on the innovation and determination of from the private sector and the allocation of capital from financial markets. Many businesses are already aware of the changes in their customer preferences because of societal and commercial focus and sustainability. Banks and other lenders and investors are increasingly assessing the sustainability of their decisions based on the transition to the low carbon economy. And this is a significant change for our society and the economy, but we're going to need new products and new kinds of services. And these will all create value through their sustainability. So there clearly will be opportunities for business and there's considerable scope for innovation in the design and development and delivery of these new carbon neutral products and services and new business models are going to emerge. I talked earlier about SMEs and from our perspective, achieving the transition to a sustainable economy will be impossible without SMEs given their importance to our economy. And so we need to think about how we're going to support them. And we're seeing in Ireland that although progress has been made in the green transition by our enterprise base, there is an evidence, there's clear evidence of a gap in progress between larger firms and SMEs. And SMEs are significantly less likely to have a climate plan and to measure their emissions compared to larger firms. I think that's reflecting what you're seeing also. Simon, Enterprise Ireland is the government organization which works with Irish Enterprise to help them start, grow and innovate. And Enterprise Ireland has a green program to help companies to incorporate sustainable practices. And the program recognizes that companies are at different stages of the transition and their enterprise emissions reduction investment fund is targeted at companies of different sizes and at the different stages in decarbonization. It includes putting in place energy monitoring systems. And this is really important to determine a baseline and to establish the carbon footprint of enterprises. And they're providing grant aid towards capital investments in decarbonizing so that companies can decarbonize their manufacturing process. It's also supporting research development and innovation. For example, with innovation vouchers for SMEs in the areas of sustainability and decarbonization. And very importantly, they're providing training, sustainability training and mentoring supports so to upskill and to re-skill SMEs so to give them the knowledge that they're going to need to succeed in the green transition. And small businesses can also receive energy audit vouchers to get professional advice, to increase energy efficiency and to reduce their costs. I'd just like to finish John with a final point which is on energy security, which has come up in the discussions. And this has become a critical issue in terms of competitiveness for all of Europe in the last two years. Ireland has an exceptional offshore wind resource. Our maritime area is approximately eight times the size of our landmass. And we're developing this resource and it's going to put us on the path to net zero, but it will also create local jobs and help to future proof our business. We have an overall renewable electricity target of 80% by 2030. And to deliver on it, we're going to install five gigawatt of offshore winds by 2030 and then an additional two gigawatt of offshore winds that's going to be dedicated to the production of green hydrogen. Just to note that our 2050 target is actually 37 gigawatt of offshore winds. So we're developing a national industrial strategy to maximize this economic opportunity both from a supply chain and an industrial demand perspective. And this is just one example of the significant supply chain and industrial opportunities that are out there now for Irish and for all of European business. Thanks. Great, thank you very much, Barbara. And just last but not least, Harry, you are the chair of CLG Europe here. What do you make of what our previous panelists have to say and how do you see the relationship between policy and business? I think several panelists are saying in different words, it's all about speed. So also like Simon mentioned on Climate Week in New York City last month, is not so much the direction that would be concerning. We're not going to go back to internal combustion engine and to incandescent light bulbs. So we are a lighting company, so Signify, I keep adding, is a new name for film lighting. But then it's about the speed. And there indeed, so the Green Deal Industrial Plan, it's a good thing. I think also there we should not move into a blaming game towards the US or towards China. China actually, they had an industrial policy for 20 plus years, so it's to their credit. And it's, let's say, our mistake that we didn't have that. So we're building that now. But I think also reflecting on that, we see now that in the, let's say in all the industrial planning, that there's a lot of attention to the supply side. Let's say the supply side of the energy mix, energy intensive companies, and that's all good. And scaling up renewable super important, but then some things like hydrogen and nuclear will take a lot of time for scale and impact. And we see a bit of the weather anomalies, particularly this year, but also the fact that if you look at the last 10 years, as Europe, we are more or less importing for one billion euro of fossil fuel per day, that we need results. We need results that are reducing energy costs. Let's say the energy bill, we need results in emission reduction. And we should also realize there, and so Europe will never, never ever have the cheapest energy. So we should be leading in least energy. And there's a lot of untapped potential, let's say at the demand side. So what I would say there, let's balance the approach on the supply and on the demand side for a couple of reasons. And first of all, a lot of, let's say quick mitigation is possible. I'll give you a few numbers on lighting, but also there are a lot of strong companies in Europe on that demand side. If you look at us, we are the world leader in lighting, but also Siemens, ABB, Schneider Electric, but also VLUX, then FOS, you name them. So those are all really strong companies. And if we then accelerate market uptake of those efficient solutions, by also implementing, it's a lot about action, implementing the energy efficiency directive, agreeing on adequate building directive and also implementing that, then actually we create a lot of jobs that people had changed in the lights, had been also putting in building management systems, double glazing and so forth, had that replace, had a billion euro of fossil fuel import per day. There's also the, when you look at the demand side, it is also important to, let's say, to realize that energy efficiency, according to IPCC and to the IA, has to do 40 to 50% of keepers within safe warming boundaries. And as I mentioned, it's all about speed. So we were already, I think more than 20 years, one of the technologies on the list in China, same as solar panels and other side of industries that they want to dominate. It's all fine, it's a competition. So we foresaw that, we also knew, and that is also why in 2006, in December, actually here in Brussels, have you called for something that was very symbolic and it's geologic now, for the global phase out of incandescent light bulbs? And now it sounds like, okay, that was like a no-brainer, but it was World Headline News when we did it. It was also still two thirds of our sales volume, and at the time, had lighting was 19% of global electricity. And what you see we did is also, let's say, as an industry, so we agreed with Osram, which was then part of Siemens, and with Gene Lighting, obviously a part of GE, that we would compete for the same vision of the future, but they were a little bit slower. So they're gone. And so you see, it is also not only a race for human survival, but also race, let's say for a role, company survival. And I think even that sense that you see, what let's say, large demand side industries matter to Europe's future competitive sustainability. This is also an area where we need to, let's say, accelerate. And that can be done by accelerating it towards the magic 3% per year renovation rates of infrastructure by looking, let's say, how can procurement help and accelerate, take a lifetime perspective? And a lot of things said that the other panelists have spoken about. And I give you one example there. What is then also relevant? Have you seen, there's a lot of attention on the end transition, but we need to also to approach that in a more integrated way. And I give an example on lighting. So we are very, and let's say fortunate that we are seen as a positive sector. Because of the things that I just mentioned, that today we are 85% LED. We are actually, we were world leader in all technology and tubes and bulbs, and we are world leader in digital and connected smart LED lighting, which is pretty unique. But then also being 85% LED, 50% of all the light points in Europe are still all technology. So if those would be replaced, which can be done much quicker and then some other things, and then not only Europe would save 65 billion Europe a year, reduce 51 million tons of carbon, but also what we call it would free up a massive amount of electricity that can be used for the electrification of heating and transport. And those are big numbers. And of course also we need to do the other things on efficiency, adding that up. Well, I know that the numbers from our sector, because actually interestingly, I like number crunching and modeling, that the average electricity consumption of a household is 3,400 kilowatt hours. The global average is exactly the same as the European average by coincidence. An electric car that drives 10,000 months per year, which is more or less the number that's being used, needs 3,400 kilowatt hours. A heat pump, depending on the size of your house, needs more or less the same. I live in the southern Netherlands, close to Eindhoven, which is also called Brainport, the Silicon Valley of Europe. GDP growth in the region, Hymeria is 6%, so more than China. But the grid is congested. There are hundreds of companies that are waiting for more electricity and it's not there. So that is why I'm telling with this example, and there are more, that we need an integrated approach to the energy transition, and then we can make renewables count more instead of throwing part of those away. We can efficiency help electrification and we can increase the speed that is actually going to determine very much how compared to sustainability, but also how that looks from a positive perspective, accelerates at a pace in every region in the world. So really seeing like, this is a race, sustainability, active climate change is innovation, so that we innovate towards the future that we desperately need. Thank you very much. So you've heard from our six speakers there, any questions from the floor on any of those topics? Nope, in which case I'll ask my own. Obviously recently we've heard a lot about the EU looking into probes, namely against China on all sorts of technologies from electric vehicles to steel. Do you think this is the right approach when the whole world needs to be heading towards net zero and China provides many of these technologies at a much lower price? I'll hand that one off to Barbara, would you be willing to take that to start with? Yeah, I mean, I think rather than focusing on one particular aspect of what's clear from the debate here, that there's a whole lot of strands to our progression to net zero. So rather than focusing on one particular aspect, which might be the competitive aspect or inquiries or whatever, I think the key thing is, and this has very much come out, I think from Kimo and indeed from Harry as well, that the advantages for Europe in being an early mover in all of these technologies and in taking these opportunities and building up because we, as I said, we believe in the global markets and our ability to compete in the global markets and to export and we need to be able to compete with companies all over the world. So we need to be the leaders in these areas and we do have the skill sets, we do have the result, we do have highly educated workforces. Certainly, I know speaking from my own country where we have one of the highest levels of secondary education amongst our workforce, but we're a small country. When you look at Europe as a whole and the population that we have, we have huge strengths and huge assets to build on and if we can upskill our workforces for these opportunities, I think we can compete with anybody and we will have to look at where our weaknesses are and the risks and manage those risks. But as I said, we all need to build on our strengths and I think that's where we should start from is looking at the strengths and building on those. And Simon? Yeah, I was thinking, I was reflecting what a privilege is to be sitting on a panel where we're all talking about the race to the top and maybe 20 years ago would we have, you almost pinch yourself to feel that feeling where we're almost nervous that we're not going to win the race. But then I would also say it's a race that we all kind of need to win. And I think for most companies like IKEA and probably Signify and SSAB, if you're operating in multiple markets, we need to move in all those markets, right? So at the moment for us, renewable electricity is quite easy to do in all of our markets, apart from India and South Korea, and we want to close that gap. So maybe it's to say, let's keep the competitive spirit but let's also remember that we all do need to win the race. I think that's quite important. And Harry, you have something to add? Yes, just a few remarks, and then I think also like Barbara's saying, we have the talent. As a Dutch person, I would say we also have Max Verstappen, he has a talent. But then we need to bring it to life and implement that. But I think also how we talk a lot if you look through what a lot of discussions had, we look a lot at technology, at policies and financing. But we also need to give it a visit people face. If we really then, let's say, talk more about and understandable vocabulary, what are the real people benefits? So we see examples with better street lighting, less traffic accidents, and less assaults, and really double digit improvements in cities around the world. Let's say more comfort at home, more productivity in the office without having to work harder. So I think if we give it this people's face and we demystify and actually people had that are confused and don't exactly know what to do, they see like, oh, okay, they get sort of, ah-ha. And then this will also translate into their voting and buying behavior. Because I think the psychology there, of them embracing change is also really important as part of the, yeah, let's say to create, to increase the speed. And I think we have the education level has, so a lot of people will understand if you communicate in that way. So let's not forget next to policies and technology and finance. We need really to give this a human face and communicate in a way that the larger part of the population who are not, let's say, let's say high on technology or expert on policy so that they understand and turn it into voting and buying behavior. Great, feel free to put your hand up if you have a question. Oh, we have a, yep, Kimo. I have a question, I have a comment. And when I was a young man, I used to travel, I used to live and travel around the world six years in Japan and the US and so forth doing business in Africa and South America. And it's not in every continent and not in every country that ordinary business people can go to their representatives and say, look, this is not correct. This piece of legislation has to be changed and they listen to us. And here we have actually a prime example because I was giving or we were giving with my colleague some amendment proposals to the representative and he took some of them. Of course, he said that it works. It works, it works. And if you think of this, it is actually a value. It is a value that we have in Europe and I can tell you many countries, I don't have to name them, where it goes totally other way around. It comes from the top and then they tell you, you established a steel plant here, you do cement plant here. I give you this and that if you do it, but then the voice of the people, the entrepreneurs is not heard at all basically. And let's embark on this value also in Europe. Let's use this valuable asset which we probably always don't realize that we have it in Europe. So we have a possibility to talk to the people who are setting and building up our business framework. And together doing it, I think we will succeed on this one. It's not easy. And let me say it, allow me to say it. We are sometimes very slow here in Brussels. But you know it, it takes sometimes years compared to some more autocratic places where it's like this. But let's use this valuable asset that we have and I think we will be able to make it. I think one of the areas where Europe isn't so competitive at the moment and Harry, you mentioned it is the price that citizens and businesses pay for their energy. And obviously that was something that came very much to the fore after Russia invaded Ukraine last year. Chrissie, I was wondering from you, I mean, what more do we need to see at EU level to help bring down the cost of power for citizens? And obviously at the moment, we're seeing quite a lot of disagreements between France and Germany over what kind of power should be used during the transition. I mean, what is your message to those two big countries at the heart of Europe? Yeah. What we have realized very clearly after the invasion is that you cannot have all the eggs in one basket in the energy sector. So you have to have the mix. And you have to have the mix from different point of view. Well, one of them is the price. The other one is the energy security and defense policy, actually. So when you don't produce all your electricity from one place, which is the case in many, many smaller countries, where one region is, let's say, is the basis of energy production, then you are more vulnerable if you haven't mixed your energy production. So I think a lot of things, what I see now from Estonian point of view, a lot of things have been done already from the side of European Union in terms of speeding up the development of renewable energy parks. And it has helped quite a lot. So as I said, the extensive legislative package that we have been working on was actually based on those proposals that came from the EU. The cooperation between the countries is one of the aspects, I think, which should be further elaborated, especially in terms of energy grids, so that the energy would be transmissible between the countries, etc. This is something also we feel that more work should be put on. Of course, we have won a very good case. We have been cooperating with Latvia in order to establish a common, one big offshore wind park. But these examples, I think, should be more common across Europe. Christoph, and you're at the heart of these negotiations. What's your take? Yeah, I'm working on EMD, electricity market design, and it's very complex. I fully agree with what Christy said. And I just... We have a poor example today because you know that the interconnection between Estonia and Finland has a blast today. We don't know if it is a Russian or if it's an accident. It seems to be a Russian, but we are not sure. At this time, it means that there are two problems with electricity. The first is the price, of course, but it's not the only problem. The availability is also important, and maybe more, because the citizens will be very angry when the price of energy is expensive, but they will be more angry if there are no lights, if there are no heating during the summer. And that's the reason why we have to look very carefully on the two sides. And of course, with electricity market design, it works for a lot of years, this electricity market, but it was not done to have a high price on the gas model, we can say. And now we have to find a new tool in order not to say during six months at this level of price. You know that with the merit order. First, renewables, second, hydraulic, third, nuclear power. It's all electricity. And after, if we have not enough production of electricity, we need to start gas, petrol, coal, plants in order to have enough electricity for all. Some propose to cut electricity on the side, gas on the other side. I was the first to say in France, no, it's a real mistake, because if you finish all the electricity tools and you need more electricity, what are you doing? You said to the people, okay, you send the black, no lights. No, it's not possible. After electricity, you have to start gas or fossil energy. Well, the best solution, of course, will be to have enough renewables, enough hydraulics, have enough decarbonized energy in order never to start those fossil systems. Then now we find a solution in electricity market design. And I hope that the moment state will find a good solution together. I hope that today in Hamburg, Germany and France will agree on it. We have long-term contracts with our solution. For, you can say, PPAs or CFDs. Of course it's long-term, but it's a way not to increase so much a price on the spot market. And I think it is a way. Of course, sometimes it takes a long time. For example, for gas, when we explained to the people today that Ursula von der Leyen did it, that the price of the gas is 10 times less than one year before or some months before. And the people receive is not. Not able to see anything, it's normal because we store gas at the highest price. Before the time it arrives to the final user, it takes a lot of time. And it's very complex to explain to the citizens yet, but I'm sure that with a lot of pedagogy, with a lot of explanation and with a lot of agreement between the moment state, between the people who are inside the electricity market, we will find a good solution. Great, we're nearing the end of our session now, but I do see we have one question from the room. If you could introduce yourself as well, that would be great. Thank you. I'm Simon Connell from Beringa Partners and a senior associate at CISL, as you prefer. We've heard a lot about consumers and carbon and the energy markets. Given the breadth of the Green Deal, I'm really interested in the panellists' views on what excites them, what the optimism and the innovation might be as we start to think about circular economy and biodiversity, and particularly, thank you Simon for your commentary on mattresses, but I'd like to hear more from others about moving beyond carbon and how we bring consumers with us in that process. Is there anyone who'd like to say that, Simon, first? Great question. I love that. What are we excited about? I think we haven't really talked about biodiversity today, but I'd love to pick you up on that. I think we need billions of capital to flow into natural capital and to flow into ecosystem restoration, and we have an amazing foundation with the EU Restorational. I think it's super exciting, the kind of financial methodologies that we will get to scale nature, because at the moment we're relying on philanthropy, which is good and we have some good examples, but imagine if we could unlock the potential of private capital in a really systematic way to really restore nature in Europe and beyond. I think that is really exciting, and I know there's some banks working on it. We had some sessions in New York, so there are some good things happening. I still see it's still a bit too philanthropic, so imagine if we had a solar business case, I think it would be amazing what could happen, yeah. Great, and we are running out of time, so I'm just gonna ask the panel one question. Between now and 2030, what's the single thing that the EU can do to boost its competitiveness globally? And if you could keep your answer very short, that would be great. So if we start at the end, Kristi, I don't know if you want to kick us off. So I would be very brief to make it quick. To push for, I think, the circular economy, to push more for the solutions, more for the enablers, so that we would be able to produce more, our own resources, find new materials, and yeah, I think I will give the chance to the others too. Great, thank you, Simon. Regulatory harmony, and also stimulate investment in a circular economy. That's two for circular economy. Kristoff? For me, the first thing is that Europe has to be, stop to be naive, and find a real fair competition in the global market, a real level playing field, and to trust in his own capacity to succeed in the global market. Kimo? I'm happy to continue along the same lines. We need reform of the trade policy in Europe and also globally, because what is not happening in Europe is that our trade policy is not aligned with our climate policies. And I could go along in this explanation, but I will simply say that we don't have any trade tools to take into consideration environmentally harmful imports. We don't have a tool, no tool whatsoever. And that is partly destroying, not destroying, but that partly harming the European green transits. Barbara? I think there are aspects of the transition where it's going to be difficult for us to compete with other parts of the world, but the one area where I think nobody has an advantage, but potentially we do, and we can certainly leverage it, isn't skills. If everybody needs all parts of the world they're going to need skilled, really highly skilled and up-skilled people to deliver the green transition. Nobody else has an advantage over that. In fact, we could have an advantage. We have a very good base to build off and if we really leverage that, I think that can give us a competitive edge. Great, and finally, Harry? Yeah, now building on that, with the example I gave on Max Verstappen has a lot of talent, so in Europe we have a lot of talent, but we also saw it's a lot of hard work. So with lots of the policies now in place, I think it's also a good moment to switch our thinking and to spend less time on agreeing what to do and more time on doing what was agreed. So to roll up our sleeves and let's say get traction and through action. Great, well thanks to all of our panelists. That concludes the session and we'll start again in a couple of minutes on expectations for COP, a subject close to my heart. So let's go. Yeah, and I'm so excited. I'm so excited. I know. Thank you very much. You got a piece. Thank you. No, no. Sorry. I should have rehearsed one. Yes. Three. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Everyone, sorry. We're about to start the next session. Okay, very good. Well, thank you so much and we're back for what is a final session of the day and we're joined by Bas Eghoud, who is MEP. He sits on the committee for the environment, public health and food safety. He's also vice chair of the group of the Greens and the European Free Alliance. He's sitting next to me, so he is obviously joining us in person. Joined by him, given the hybrid nature of some events. There you go. Then we're also joined by Maria Mendelucha, who is CEO of Women Business Coalition and also joining us is Oris Veidt, who is state secretary for environment and climate for Slovenia. So he's representing the government of Slovenia. Thank you very much. Obviously the title of the session is The Road to COP and the expectations around this meeting. I wonder whether you're excited about this COP meeting, whether you feel there's room for improvement, whether you feel a more particular way about the host country. Some have suggested that there's a contradiction in just the location by itself. Others say that it's a reality where we are right now in the world of the energy crisis. So I wonder, putting all of this together, how excited on a scale from 1 to 10 are you? Starting with me. Five. So not super excited. I think still we can get something out of it, but let's be honest. Looking at the importance of this COP and what it should be and then the expectations, but also the debate towards it. I think we need to gain a lot of more traction. So for now I'm not there yet. So I'm on a five, but I hope I can gain still. So this is the COP when the rubber hits the road, 28 cops. We have not included in any of the text the fact that we need to face out for some fuels if we want to tackle climate change. So it is about time. I have to say that in Sultan Al-Jaber in every speech, he's saying that the face down of fossil fuel is inevitable. So in that respect, and with the many caveats that he includes in those sentences, I am not optimistic, hopeful, but we always, we don't lose hope, right? That finally at COP 28 we will manage to say what is obvious. Thank you. Yeah, as well. From my side, about a seven. I have to say that I don't find the excitement to be really the correct word. I'm more hopeful or anxious or concerned probably than I am anything else. But I would still like to say that I believe that this year's COP is a milestone. In a way that I believe that every single COP will be a milestone until we are on track to reach the one and a half degree target. So unless we are on track, which we are not, it is very important for this COP to deliver upon elements which will make sure that we're heading in the right direction. If it doesn't, it's another year lost and for the process we cannot stand many more of such of COPs not delivering upon what is needed. But does the format I wonder still work for you? Is this something that you say, yeah it does because it brings government, it brings research, it brings business. Although I should note last year there were a lot less members of the business community compared to Glasgow. Some said it was because of well the energy crisis at that point because public may was or could be losing some interest in it but given the whole situation. Do you also believe that business has to be represented on a bigger way because a lot of people read it as maybe they're not as committed as they said they were a year prior. We are, I heard that was expecting more than 70,000 people. So from a climate perspective, this is horrendous. Let's face it. Okay, so we're not walking the talk. I find that probably we should move to a model where the regional climate weeks are more important so that we mobilize the business from the region. Let's say the train has left the station for this one. But I think Simon Steel, you know, has something to do there because it is more than 70,000 people. I think it's good that business are showing in these conferences and they come because they're looking for business. And when climate is a business is good because that means that it's an opportunity. So I think that should give us hope that we just need to find the mechanism for this to happen throughout the year so that we don't all go at the same time. And also so that these conversations are happening at national and at European level where actually decisions are taking that are going to impact the businesses. And so the Green Growth platform is one of these places. Do you feel like, because she made a very good point, you have COP, there's a height in interest, it's everywhere on TV, everyone talks about it. Then something gets agreed, although last year everyone remembers how that ended, maybe not on the high note that everyone was expected, a very fast one that was pulled by India. But beyond that, as Maria was saying, should there be a more of a kind of follow up check on the implementation? Is there too much of an up and down from every addition where we go on a high and then we kind of forget until the next year? No, I do think to be very honest, I mean, we have to look at really what we're doing at such a COP. Because I think there is always and more and more now the opening is with high level statements, right? And then you have the feeling you get two weeks later something out that has not so much to do with the high level comments at the beginning. So you're also having a credibility issue here. I mean, there's no head of state anymore that is saying climate is not important. So they're all repeating that message. But then in the end, basically after they left, then you get, and now I'm going to say something nasty. So those who is legally trained don't close your ears. But it's taken over by the negotiators who have been doing this business for 20 years. So give them a bone and they fight over every legal little comma and point on it. Whereas I think more and more what we need is a political summit where the heads of state should also stay longer. Then this can be much shorter. But then you need to have also conclusions coming out of those statements that are much more related to each other. Now what happens too often is that the leaders come away with, to be very honest, nice speeches. But how many people still believe those speeches and those conclusions should be much more related to it. And then of course, there is always much more legal work to be done after, but you don't have to do that in the conclusions. I think we are much more stuck now in, you know, in the Paris agreement, Article 6 and people can discuss Article 6 really for decades. No problem. But that's not where you need the heads of state for. You need the conclusions on what is the future of fossils, what is the future of renewables, what is the future of efficiency. There you need the conclusions on and then you can have separate meetings where you can all have some legal advisers on the text. But I think we should more and more split the two. Then you can also have a shorter summit, which I think also would be in the benefit of quite some people. Some say it's also getting very long. The leaders are there for one, two days max. Then a whole week goes by, then people forget. And then we'll go back for the grand finale if it's a grand finale. But speaking of a finale this year, what would it make or what would you like to see to see? Yes, I was going in five out of ten, but actually it was a successful cop. I think if we are now finally going to call a spade a spade. And that is indeed, and this is also something where Europe needs to improve. Because I know we all like to congratulate ourselves that we're doing very ambitious things. It's very good. However, in the world that message also is getting a bit tiring that people feel, oh, there they come again. Yes, okay, you're brilliant. You have your fifth for 55. Fine, good enough. But now also when you talk to the Europeans and when there was a gas crisis, suddenly we were all over the world buying gas as fast as possible and we didn't care about the price. We could afford it and others were staying left alone. So the credibility of Europe is also at stake here. And I think here we need to be very clear that if we want to succeed and want to stay below the 1.5 degrees, it's not only talking about the good things that need to accelerate, which we all agree with. But we also need to talk about the things we don't want anymore. And then it's not only talking about coal because that also is felt by a lot of developing countries like, yeah, that's a bit easy for Europe to talk about, but we need to talk about gas. We need to talk about oil. We need to be open to those issues that are also painful to us. Then we show we are really, really credible. And I think that that's really a narrative that we also should improve on as Europeans. And so I would be going beyond my five if we really are going to talk about the end of fossils, the end of fossil fuel subsidies, not inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. I've never, no one still can't explain to me what efficient fossil fuel subsidies are. They are by definition inefficient because you are paying for pollution that's never efficient. So why all this language? And we should not agree with that as Europeans, but then we should also look at ourselves because we are also still doing fossil fuel subsidies. Let's be honest about it. So I think some kind of more willingness to do self reflection as Europeans would benefit the negotiations as well. And that's what a number of countries, by the way, have said to the Europe is going to cop with a lot of baggage because of a situation that's played out for the past year. You want to add on? I wanted to come in on one point and to give a bit of insight on that. I believe that the EU is actually doing a much better job now than it has been in looking back at previous cops. I mean, especially looking back at Copenhagen in 2009. That was my entry into EU level climate policy. Exactly. I was deputy permanent representative here in Brussels and we were preparing the EU position for Copenhagen. And it was full of the same words that we still have now that EU is a global leader. It must remain a global leader, etc. But at that time, when we checked the newspapers after the Copenhagen, it was a complete surprise to us here in Brussels looking at Copenhagen that we were completely out of the picture in the last few hours of the cop. What was salvaged at the cop was basically done, should I say to my remembrance, just a lot through outreach, especially from the US, the Obama administration at the time. And EU was not much to be seen then. I think since then, we've gone further in establishing, I think, also much clearer the EU positions to third countries. I mean, one bridge we had to cross was getting an understanding of what it is actually that the EU is doing. I remember in the first round of the bi-annual reporting after the Paris Agreement where we were explaining still why this division between ETS and non-ETS and what countries' targets actually are and what is common and what is not. At the beginning, it was hard for others to really understand how ambitious we actually are because they couldn't understand the whole system that we built together. So, I mean, we've gone some far way ahead in that, but we still have some homework that we have to do, I think, for previous announcements or previous expectations, so I think for this cop to build on what you asked before on the results. One thing that we must do also already before the COP is really to make sure that according to our estimates that we have fulfilled our financial pledges from the past, so the 100 billion euro that this year we're expecting to pass for the first time. And on COP, delivery on loss and damage will help to build trust again and hopefully then deliver upon some...