 I'll start with talking about the issue of accessibility. So I know that you, most of you all know this, that there are still many, many people in the world without access to electricity. Estimates are around one billion people out of our seven and a half billion people on the planet who don't have access. And if we look at places like Sub-Saharan Africa, basically there's been really almost no improvement over a 20 year period that population is growing faster than electricity accesses. In some parts of the world, like India and Bangladesh, there has been a significant improvement in the availability of electricity, at least at the village level. But in those cases, just because it's available, the village doesn't even really mean it's available to individuals. It just means if you could afford it and if you have the proper hookup, you can have access. So lots of people and it just goes without saying that it's pretty unimaginable for us sitting where we sit, living without access to electricity. And I think the situation is even more daunting when you look at cooking fuels. There are about 2.8 billion people or about more than a third of all people use solid fuels for cooking. So this is biomass cold charcoal, also used for heating. And there's really been no improvement whatsoever over the past 20 years. It's been really hard to displace for a whole set of very complicated regions. And challenges are, of course, the air quality implications of burning solid fuels, particularly burning them in households, but it's also very time consuming to go get the solid fuels and collect them and have them available when you need them. So a real challenge in the area of cooking and warmth. So what I'd like to spend a moment doing is just talking about the benefits of energy consumption. And I'd like to talk about this in the context of sort of the average amount of energy consumed by a person for per year. Okay, and we can look around the world at different countries and they all have a different average availability of energy. And this sort of characterizes what one could expect in terms of the energy services available at different levels of consumption. So if we look at countries where people are in the range of, or portions of countries where people are in the range of 20 gigajoules per person per year, you've got basic cooking, some warmth, water availability, household lighting, and maybe a cell phone. But that's sort of this very basic package of energy services. If you can move up to say double that, what we start to see is people begin to use irrigation, there's the potential for things like food preservation, cooling, cooking, and sort of industrial scale cooking, transportation, you can move beyond a purely subsistence kind of agricultural and start generating markets. If we get up to say 60 gigajoules per person, we start seeing really enhanced communications, entertainments, TVs, school lighting, computer access, basic healthcare, much more widespread transport, sanitation, and so forth. Once we get up to 80 gigajoules per person, we start supporting industrial and commercial development. So machinery, automation, industrial processing, and so forth. And once we get it up to 100 gigajoules per person, the energy services are really advancing quality of life. So we start getting to comfort, heating, and cooling, advanced healthcare, advanced technological development, and so forth. So there's this hierarchy, but the availability of energy is very important in the context of, is it available on demand? So if you're up at the 100 gigajoules per person, you could expect when you flip the switch, it comes on. But at the very low levels, the energy services are very sporadic and unreliable. And there's a similar issue with regard to energy quality. You cannot run advanced equipment and machinery unless you have a grid that provides very high quality power, meaning it stays on, but also with good frequency regulation and so forth. So this brings us then to this chart where we can see the correlation between availability of energy and at least one measure of human wellbeing. So this is in this graph, we've got the energy per capita on the x-axis and on the y-axis, we have the human development index, which is a composite indicator of human health, level of education, as well as gross national income per capita. And the higher this value, the more wellbeing is reflected by this number. And what you can see here is that countries at less than 100 gigajoules per person typically have very low human development indexes. You can see it goes up. And by the time you get to 100 gigajoules per capita, very interestingly, what we see is there's almost no benefit in terms of this index of wellbeing. And so if you look at countries like the United States, they're way over here at nearly 300 gigajoules per capita. But if you look at countries like India, much closer to about 0.6, China has been advancing steadily and it's now close to 100 gigajoules per person and close to 0.8, human development index. So in light of this, and in light of the fact that we need to provide equitable, affordable energy to everyone, the question is, well, how much might we need? And from my perspective, that if we set a global target of about 100 gigajoules per capita, that would put us in the right ballpark of how much energy we need to provide. I used to say, imagine a world where everyone lived like an Italian, which is the Italians are a little bit more than 100 gigajoules per capita. And everyone goes, yeah, I can imagine that sounds like a pretty good life. So as a target, that's, I think, a good start. So when we think about energy access though, this is not a static situation. As we know, the world's population is growing. Incredibly quickly, it's always a shock to me to see every time I turn around, there's another half a billion people. Today, we're at about 7.6 billion people. And if we look at the United Nations forecast out to around 2100, we're in the ballpark of about 11 billion people. And it's also interesting to take a look at these projections of increased population in terms of where will population be growing? So if we look at upper income countries, what we anticipate is that the growth rate, and basically we are not increasing populations in upper income countries. In middle income countries, interestingly, populations are anticipated to go down, but we see enormous growth in the population of the least developed countries, which further exacerbates this energy access challenge because we're going to have more people in the places where people already need more energy the most. So we can say we need 100 gigajoules per person, we've got 11 billion people, we'll have 11 billion people estimated by 2100. So we need to imagine designing an energy system of about 1100 exajoules. That's a big number to put into context. That's about two times today's global energy use. So from my perspective, as we grapple with the Climate and Energy Challenge, I've always got this number in mind is what collection of energy resources and technologies can provide 1100 exajoules. But of course the story doesn't end here. There we've talked about the challenge of accessibility, but there's also the challenge of having an energy system that's protective of the environment. And of course there are very significant air quality issues, but that's really not the focus of today's conversation. Here we are really talking about climate change and how do we design an energy system that's both accessible and helps us solve the climate problem. So we can take another look back at the energy system. And as I said, we had about 600 exajoules of primary energy. About 82% of that is from fossil fuels. Of course the challenge is that when we combust fossil fuels, we make carbon dioxide, which leads to the accumulation of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere and global warming. And here's a record from August 21st, just 10 days ago of the latest data from the Montaloa Observatory with carbon dioxide concentrations in the range of 415 parts per million. And again, this is daunting to me because when I started really paying attention to this issue, the CO2 concentrations were about 360 parts per million. So it's not a surprise that there's been significant warming over the past 200 years or so. So this is a data set made available by NASA looking at the global average temperature. And we can see steady warming to today where, as I mentioned, about 1.5 degrees C of warming. And we already see very significant consequences of this. Here are two really striking photographs from space, one of California in 2018, and one of Australia in 2019. Both of these regions with massive wildfires, unprecedented wildfires, and having lived in California since the 1960s. We've always had wildfires, but they didn't start in June, they didn't last till November, and they didn't do the massive amount of devastation that we see with today's fires. And likewise in Australia, this was really unprecedented. And here is some photographs just from a week ago. Again, California on fire as we're having this meeting, very significant fires, particularly in Northern California, very close to where I am. And on the right hand side, again, an amazing photo. This was from the International Space Station, looking at the cloud of smoke over California. So everyone has their own version of experiencing climate change. It depends on where you live. It's highly local. But I think almost everyone now has some experience in their own life that an accumulation of experiences really, which say climate change is here today. Of course, there are in addition to these immediate and extreme events, there's also sort of slow moving catastrophes as a way I would think about them. If the Greenland ice sheet melts, we'd anticipate about six meters of sea level rise. This would be an enormous problem for coastal cities. And I took this photo myself and I was next to a glacier that was capping at a rate of four times. And now caps at a rate of four times the average from the 1960s or so. And this is the largest glacier in the Northern hemisphere. So that brings us to, well, what are we going to do about it? Well, the IQCC in the fifth assessment report, and more recently in the 1.5 degree C report, have made it clear that we have a carbon budget. And the idea is that if we want to limit warming to, for example, two degrees C, there's going to be some maximum amount of carbon dioxide that we can emit. And if we want to, for example, have a 66% probability that warming will remain within two degrees C, we have a remaining budget, because we've already spent a lot of our budget of about 1,100 gigatons of CO2. And I think the equally important conclusion from this perspective is that if we go over our budget, we're going to continue to have warming. So if we really want to stabilize climate at one and a half degree or two degrees C or wherever, at some point we have to achieve carbon neutrality, which is where carbon dioxide removal, which is the focus of this work, becomes so important. And this is said on a backdrop of the fact that there are many CO2 emissions that are very difficult to eliminate with today's technologies, either from an affordability point of view or we simply just don't have another option. These are things like shipping, aviation, long distance road transport, ironman steel manufacturing, cement. And also, even though renewables have gotten to be in many parts of the world, the lowest cost option for providing electricity. There are still very significant challenges associated with integrating renewable generation to provide the reliability and the quantity and quality of electricity that we need. So that at least for the time being, having some kind of particular natural gas generation available to provide what we call load following electricity is going to be important. So if you add up all of these difficult to eliminate emissions, we're about 9.2 billion tons a year. And this was based on 2014 data, quite similar today. And by 2100, who knows what that number will be, but it will be significant, most likely. And if we're going to deal with these emissions, we need some form of carbon management. It could be capturing storage on point sources or alternatively, we can look to other solutions that directly capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This has put into a sharper focus by integrated assessment studies, which show that if we want to achieve limiting warming to two degrees C or less, that we're going to need to be on trajectories such as shown by the blue and green curves here, suggesting that we need to be very close to peak emissions. We need to rapidly decrease emissions. And that sometime in the latter half of this century, we're actually going to need to be actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, which brings us to the urgency of beginning to develop the technologies and approaches that allowed us to do this. And at a really enormous scale. I mean, if you look at these numbers there, 15, 10 to 15 gigatons a year, you know, that's on the scale of a third of the global energy system today. And we know what an enormous that endeavor is. So there are many, many pathways to carbon dioxide management and carbon dioxide removal. This was a chart that was prepared on 2016 at the request of the secretary of energy to, to try to lay out the broad landscape of what are the options for carbon dioxide removal. And we won't go through this in any detail, but it does set the stage really for, for the agenda items that we're thinking about today. We have a source of our emissions today, about 36 billion tons. We can choose to capture from concentrated sources or we can capture from the air. There are a whole set of capturing conversion processes that are possible. The result of that capture process, it could be either you have a gaseous, a gaseous CO2, you could have organic carbon, you can have inorganic carbon. And then once you have those, then there's of course the question of, well, what is the ultimate fate of that? And you can either chose to utilize that carbon, or you can sequester it. And you could sequester it in geological formations, grasslands, forests, wetlands, oceans. So today's conversation is really going to be to explore the right hand side of this chart, looking at the potential of, of nature-based climate solutions to help us address this challenge. So just to wrap up the dual challenge we face of energy access and climate change. We need twice the amount of energy that we're using today, and we need to do it in a way that's carbon neutral. And with that, I am done and thank you very much. And I will stop sharing my screen. Great. I'd like, I would like to remind everyone to please use the Q and A function to submit some questions. I know that we've got a couple queued up. So I'll hand it over to Jennifer Nome. Good morning, everybody. Thank you. Wonderful presentation, Sally. So we have a couple of questions. I'd like to start with Shafiq, Jeffer. Shafiq, would you like to go ahead and ask your question? Sure. Sally, I had a bunch of questions for your presentation. I'll ask my last one first, perhaps, since you were covering that, the 10 to 15 gigatons per year for kind of negative emission technologies to even reach the two C. Scenarios is quite daunting. Does the general community really believe there are sufficient routes currently that we understand from either director, capture, natural climate solutions, et cetera, really, really to get there? Are we believing this is really kind of a route today? Or is it still very much pie in the sky? What's your take on it? I think it's a question of money. I mean, we know, we can capture CO2 directly from the air today. You know, it's quite expensive. But if we were to capture CO2 directly from the air and sequester it underground, you know, global estimates are anywhere that, oh, 3,000 billion tons to 10,000, even greater billion tons of CO2 storage capacity, you know, in saline formation. So as a backstop technology, would we do this at 10 to 15 billion tons a year? I think so. Now, if you're looking at others, you know, more nature-based solutions, you know, I think then there are lots of questions and there are people who are more expert than I are, you know, what are going to be the consequences of the massive land use changes that would be required, for example, in the area of terrestrial solutions. Or if you look at oceans, you know, what would be the consequence of, you know, ocean fertilization or direct injection, you know, at that scale or alkalinity modification. So I think in the nature-based solutions, there are many questions about, you know, is the cure going to be worse than the disease? But I think that if it were purely a technological play, could we, you know, capture it from here and put it underground, I think we could do it. But it would come at a very significant cost. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks to Shafiq for the question. And it looks like folks, you're taking a little while to wake up this morning. So Shafiq, if you want to go ahead and ask another one of your questions, because you have, I know you have many, so. So Sally, the other question I had was when we look at this 100 gigajoules per person, I think you kind of answered it with the current energy mix, this translates into, to emissions, if I see that correctly, probably about double where we are today. Right. If we have the exact same energy mix, yeah. Okay. So that was kind of the number you put at the end there of the doubling of the energy. And from a standpoint of decoupling, cooking versus heating for biomass and solid, you mentioned for the last 20, 30 years, we've really not been able to make a dent on this use in the developing economies primarily. How do you see that? Is that something we can really decouple and kind of address the needs from a heating versus cooking in different ways? Or is this really kind of a coupled problem that we can't address? Yeah, you know, it's probably not a couple problem. I think for very, very low income people, I think it's a couple problem. I think for, and particularly rural, very low income people for, for urban or, you know, peri-urban populations, I think that they probably can be decoupled to a certain extent. You know, we still, though, see a massive amount of use of biomass in, you know, major, you know, cities of 10 million people still using biomass in, in South Asia in particular. Yeah, we have a question from Jessica. Jessica, would you like to unmute yourself once you're able to and ask your question? Sure. Can you hear me? Yes. Thank you. Okay, great. Yeah. So I was really curious on that, you know, continuing on this perspective of 100 gigajoules per person for the countries that really are using excessive amounts relative to that, you know, what are the, what are the main levers that we can use to reduce people from, you know, 500 gigajoules per person down to 100. And, you know, are these things really feasible, or is this kind of just a hypothetical? Mm-hmm. Yeah. I mean, there are huge efficiency improvements you can do. I mean, just looking at cars, right? If you are driving a car that gets 25 miles a gallon, there's a perfectly decent car today that gets double, double the mileage. You know, if you look at places like the U.S., which are very, very large energy users, there's a huge difference between, for example, U.S. and Europe is in transportation. There's also a tremendous amount that can be done in terms of building energy efficiency. So there are lots of low-hanging fruit, you know, and then there are some more expensive things that need to be done, more structural, you know, vehicle electrification being one example where you can get significant efficiency improvements as well. And once you do that at scale, it will require fairly massive infrastructure changes to make sure that the electricity system and charging infrastructure is up to the task.