 I very much agree with what has just been said by my colleague from Germany. I don't think there will be a comeback of coal in the US because simply you can buy natural gas from shale gas now, basically at the price which I bought it some 25 years ago. And we have to realize here that it's available because the resource is there, it's accessible because the network distribution for gas is very much developed in the US. Much more developed than the railroad system which will have to carry, in fact there's no space at this time on the railroad system to carry the coal that would support the so-called coal revolution in the state. And thirdly, you know, energy, there's the three famous WEC-3As, has to be affordable. And I think that the natural gas-fired coal plants do generate power at a lower price than coal can, especially if you're talking about clean coal. This is obvious. So I think your President's proposition yesterday to take coal from 30% to some 3% is what needs to be. That's the low-anging fruit, as a colleague just said. And it's not, the way we will present this is very important because I think humanity will use coal someday. But the fact of the matter is in the few next decades we simply do not have the technologies in order to do this properly. Why will we be using it? Because there's 200 years reserves in China, in the US, in India. So someday coal is going to be produced. The matter of fact is it cannot be produced as much today because we don't have the technology. Same problem in essence as with the renewables. Because we don't have the technologies to produce them so that and keep them affordable for the people. We have to work on research. There has to be a lot of investment in research. Most of it was expected to come from the US industry. Now the least I can say is that what the President's decision will not support very much the investor in new technologies. I mean if you don't have access with your new technologies, with your investment to the US market, then well that's very much less. That's obvious. Finally and very shortly, I want to make sure I represent the right situation for Canada. I'm alongside my colleague here again because Canada, like Germany, the new government has been very forceful, engaging in support of the Paris Accord, but he's kept the same objective as the former government. And plus with the actual action plan, we won't even meet these low objectives. So the difficulties are not only about Trump's decision, the difficulties about the decision of many countries, not taking the decisions. Thank you. Olivier. I would like to come back to the Trump decision. In fact, clearly I'm convinced that this will have a minimal impact on the energy mix and on the CO2 emission of the United States for four main reasons. The first is coal. Coal is not as you said, coal is not competitive towards gas, gas reserves are huge and it may perhaps stop the ongoing decline for a few years, but not for the long term. Second point, Trump policy will have only a minor impact on the development of renewable in the United States. Renewable development is not really linked to federal policy and regulation and incentives are decided and implemented at the local level, states, local authorities. The third point is that a significant share of CO2 emission in the U.S. as well in many countries is coming from the transport sector and for the time being Trump administration didn't intend to change the corporate average fuel efficiency standards which has been decided by consensus by Obama administration. And fourth, for the last few years we have seen a strong mobilization in the U.S. of the industry and local state holders, stakeholders, some state and municipalities that has been said have put in place emission trading system and major industry has shown a strong commitment on climate change and just yesterday I was surprised by the announcement of Exxon that Exxon will spend $1 billion per year to research on green energy. So these are four major reasons in order to explain that this will not have a direct impact. It will have an indirect impact but it's a diplomatic impact and while some countries may follow the example of the United States, I will not refer to any country but you have the idea of some countries. And I would like also to highlight the fact that Trump diplomacy may also have a dramatic impact on the short term on the energy scene and just consider the international policy towards Venezuela, Russia, Middle East and specifically Iran. And this is really a short-term threat on the energy sector in just the next few years. Thank you. I cannot agree more about what you mentioned about these elements of the impact of Trump decision on the clean energy development. But Mr. Lee, do you have some comments? Yes, we will get to Mr. Fluke's points. I think you have a point, your point. But I think your point is rather regarding the basic problems of Paris Agreement itself. It's not something to do with Donald Trump's decision to withdraw. There is many studies and I can understand his skepticism because many studies show that the agreement would actually have a relatively small impact on the climate change at a tremendous cost that I think is true. So there is one thing. But what I want to say is that despite the many drawbacks of the agreement, I wonder whether we have any other alternative. This consensus emerged in a very difficult manner by more than 186 years, in which North Korea also takes path in. South Korea ratifies the Paris Agreement much earlier than South Korea. So I wonder whether there is any alternative. And the Paris Agreement is not perfect. There is no dispute settlement mechanism. Therefore, there is no way to enforce the commitment. There are many things to be made from now until the end of the next year, but it is not certain. They can emerge the consensus. So however, our fight against climate change is must, it's not an option. In that point, I think the G20 leader's declaration is symbolically meaningful. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, Masuda-san. I'd like to write on one of the big trend or tight of time moving in the world. In that sense, I don't think any expression of intention of government will not have big impacts as used to be. For example, there is a big breakthrough energy coalition by 28 billionaires in the world, which declared in November 2015 just on the Evo Paris Agreement, and many investment is taking place thanks to those private money. And there are many other coalitions of this type, and like C40, big 40 cities captured in the world are tying hands, and this number increased nearly to 100 already. And also universities are aligned with each other, and many companies are working together, and many alliances in transport sectors or renewable sectors. So I think we should be carried away too much with the activity of one or single government like United States or single political leaders like Trump, that time and tide is moving much faster than political leaders may think. And already the big ship has departed from the point of departure. From this point of view, I'm not very much worried about whatever things Mr. Trump might say despite all these agreement. That's my feeling. Okay. Thank you. Yes. I think at this last you have something to say. I want just to make one comment coming back on the low hanging fruit because I think we have to be very pragmatic. And we see here from the discussion we have on the Trump administration that at the end of the day, even though the U.S. made that decision, and I agree that it may have some impact, a negative impact, but the reality is that market forces, the price of gas just made that today the U.S. is probably the best in class or the second best in class in terms of CO2 emissions because of the switch. And so it's not because of a political decision, it's because of market activity. And I think that's very important that regulations actually should make market work in the right way. You took the very good example of Great Britain where with a price of 18 pounds per ton of CO2, the switch between coal and gas for power generation took place almost immediately in the country with very significant benefits in terms of CO2 emissions. And I think that for all the countries where you have the chance of having some coal powered power plants and gas powered power plants, you just don't need to make any investment but just by increasing the price of CO2, in case it would not naturally be the case as it is in the U.S., but to a low level, you can switch because you dispatch gas powered power plants rather than coal powered power plants just for economic reasons. And so I think we need to follow up on this low hanging fruit policy, let's say, to try first and not necessarily to have a global price of CO2 worldwide. Now that's not going to happen, but to have a local price or between several countries in order on a regional basis with interconnections between different areas, but to do that in order to be efficient. And that's really a pragmatic approach I think we should follow. Yeah, that's a very good point. Friedberg, Friedberg, Friedberg, can you do that in Germany to make certain carbon price to reduce the coal to something else? Because as you have said, I mean Germany is burning 50% of the power from coal, right? How do you reduce coal in Germany? It's a little bit less than 50, but almost. But you know, we have in the moment the negotiations for a new government in Germany. So the Green Party of course says, get out of coal. Let's put a final date for the last coal power plant as we have done the phasing out with nuclear. The other two parties, Christian Democrats and free Democrats, are against it. But the main reason is the strength of the coal lobby, including the trade unions in Sparrel areas. So in areas like Saxony or North Rhine-Westphalia, there's a long tradition of coal. Trade unions are strong. And so it is, nobody really says we love coal or want to continue, but it is a fight of interests. And therefore I believe we will not come very far. And the question of having some sort of national carbon price, we all know the ETS system hasn't led very far. The ETS price for carbon is so low that it's not an incentive to switch from coal to gas. But then there is a discussion of introducing, like in Britain, a national coal tax or whatever. But again here, I think it will not happen in the coalition contract. So I'm very sorry to say that I think we will continue with enormous build-up of wind and solar, but we will also stick with coal. This is interesting. Yes. Yes. Andre. Yeah. That's a bit less. Make it specific. This is interesting. Suggestion. Yes. Now, wind power and solar power are recognized as renewables. In the case of hydro, it's not so clear. Depends on the country. It depends very much on the country. Some places it is, some places it's not. But the matter of the fact is that in many instances, wind and solar are simply not affordable. So it's very nice to say, but it won't happen because the people will decide by themselves. It's the decision that's going to be made locally. I would suggest that an approach be made especially to the UN because it's the UN that was against large hydro, so that hydro, a low-hanging fruit, is fully recognized as a renewable. Maybe it had not been in the past and I don't want to reopen these discussions. But having the facts before us when it comes to climate change, I think there's an urgency here and that we need already available renewable. That is hydro. That is hydro in many parts of the world, in Africa, in South America, and in Asia. So why don't we make all those international organizations, change their mind a little bit and say, at least for a while, the time it will take us to make wind and solar affordable, let's go to, let's allow for hydro development. In Africa, one site, Inga, would simply double the amount of power available at a reasonable price in Africa. Double. Multiply by two. Yeah, Andrea. I can pretty agree. I mean, Canada has a lot of potential hydro also, but if you say so, I'm very happy to add nuclear as a cream and sustainable power. Korea, Japan, France are representing nuclear and that is very important that global, I mean, world bank, et cetera, must finance. Chairman, the discussion goes along. That's exactly the point. I do support you. Thank you very much. Because I don't know why we, with low, urban, low sources, we take away, well, that's not going, that's not reasonable at all. I free agree. But well, we should not discuss this too much, but this is, the call is a very important issue, though we understand the German difficulty, but other part of the world, maybe France or Canada, the U.S., because of the market, the coal use is going to decline. That is, that's what you said. Yes. If you're looking at the last few years figures, you will find coal power generation is declining, although coal production is increasing simply because it's more exported. I won't ask Masuda-san because Japan is planning to build still the coal power plants in addition to the current level. Japan is heading towards the opposite direction from many countries. Currently, if my memory is correct, there are 44 either planned or under construction coal-fired power plants in Japan. The two reasons, because of the stoppage of nuclear power plants, only just several of them have returned to life, and still 48% of the population in Japan is against restarting nuclear power plants. That's reason number one. Number two, utility market, energy market is in the middle of liberalization and by fiscal year 2020, unbundling will be completed. That means utility companies lose competitive power. For that purpose, cost-cutting is a priority, despite more increased sales emissions. This is a big issue, but even the Japanese government, very determined to green economy, cannot stop the desire of utility companies to survive in very competitive market. We have to do something by that. My idea is probably bearing coal under the ground completely is not realistic because actual desire, even in Japan to use coal, the point is how we can use coal more clean away. Clean coal technology is not really clean because that will emit to less CO2, less NOx, but is not completely free from CO2. So maybe the next agenda is why don't we turn to CCS and CCUS, total and is leading those technologies and really supporting all those technologies. Big approach is we have to use all energies available to make it affordable and accessible to everybody. And jeopardizing or demonizing coal is not a wise way of managing this huge global economy which actually need energy. So I think we have to invest more on technology to use even hydrocarbons in a very different way and coal should be the target for us to approach to that direction. That is use coal with less CO2 emission and ultimately leading to global application of CCS and CCUS technology. That is my scenario. Thank you. So Germany is using CCS or CCUS? We had two pilot projects but then opposition came about, well the same sort of opposition that we had against nuclear, same sort of opposition that we had against nuclear, fears of the population, so the German government decided not to pursue this course. But I happen to agree completely to Tatsuo because in many countries in the world, let's take India, Colombia, Kosovo with the largest Lignite reserves in Europe, many other countries around the world. Kosovo is a wrong example because it's a tiny country but even the big players, China will need coal until deep into the century. And if we know that this is a reality, we can preach and say renewables, renewables, renewables, it is much better in my point of view to put some of the enormous subsidies that we put into solar and wind into CCS and CCU. I think this is a real key to turn around the climate policies if we can make a business case out of that. And that of course again means we need higher CO2 prices because if we have higher CO2 prices suddenly CCS and CCU will make sense. I can only fully agree with what you just mentioned. It is clear that under the two degree scenario of IEA, there is no way we can achieve this scenario without CCS. So it's not a question of whether we like it or not, it's a question of if we want to get there, we have to find ways to make CCS or CCUS with the use of CO2 work. And I fully agree that if you don't have any carbon price, it's very difficult to make a business case. And if you just use subsidies, which for a start is needed, after you need private money because private money is just, you know, you need business cases because you're not going to develop full CCS over time without private money. You need to have a business case being a company like ours is dedicating 10% of R&D on carbon capture. So that's a huge effort which is being done. And I think this is absolutely key in the process. Now there is a thorny question, difficult question that you raised on what should we, well, what should CCS apply to? And there is a question here because there is limited storage, ability for CCS. And in that regard, probably, in our view, it's better to dedicate CCS to gas power plants because even though they emit less CO2, but on an energetic basis, it is more efficient actually to concentrate the CCS effort on gas fire power plants rather than on coal fire power plants. So it's, in my view, an additional benefit of following the gas chain and advocating for gas as a transition fuel because, unfortunately, the ability to store CO2 will be limited at some point in the future. I know that the Norwegian government has set more than 60 dollars per tonne carbon tax. And that's the reason why I start oil is doing CCS in a slightly off field. Statoil and total and shell. So if the government set that kind of determination of the pricing, CCS is always possible. So the German government, if they decide to set 60 dollars per tonne carbon tax, it's always possible. But it's more political decisions they don't like to do. But maybe I may add just one comment on that. But costs go down when you pay attention and you work on it. And sometimes I hear criticism saying, oh no, CCS can only work if you have 100 dollars per tonne. But we have to start and we'll make progress and we'll reduce cost and we'll be more efficient but it needs to be started somewhere and it may be more and more efficient as actually the activity when the old price drops from 120 dollars to 60, I can tell you that the industry has adapted. It will be about the same in all of you for CCS but we need to start from somewhere. So you don't necessarily need to have a very high price of CO2. Olivier. Then Lyft. I've been involved quite a long time at the EU level on CCS and I would like just to make two comments. Unfortunately in Europe, except some companies such as Total, we have lost the momentum of CCS and now the leaders are in the US and in China and we in Europe will be again Me too. Second comment, in fact, UK is very fortunate because they are isolated for Europe, from Europe and in fact they are able, even before the Brexit, they are able to set up their own policy. Their own policy, it's carbon tax but it is also the relaunch of nuclear energy with a specific contract for difference, development of renewable, the huge investment of gas. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that in Europe, except UK, it will be very, very difficult to cope with this challenge mostly if there is no agreement in Germany and I think that if there is no agreement on Germany, on the German government on CO2 tax or CO2 price I don't know, then we will wait for years to have a price signal, a significant price signal in Europe. Interesting. Perhaps it will be useful also to have a focus on coal but... Okay, well that's very interesting. It's not Trump but German government who is stopping this exercise. Lisa. I have a question towards the energy expert. You're talking about the inevitability of the coal use but according to the IEA, the coal power generation takes up 41% of entire world power generation being the largest contributor to climate change. How we can address the climate change if we do not deal with this issue, the carbon first. That is the, I think the first question I would like to be enlightened by the expert. And secondly, I would like to talk a little bit about Korea's new administration policy with regard to energy. I think Mr. Fuga, if you came to this year's Knowledge Forum, you would have different views from Korea. The new Korean government that took office this May is making very bold energy approach, energy policy approach. That was because I was there last year. Yeah, yeah. Okay. It's very different from the previous government. This administration decision has decided to halt construction of new coal power generators. And they will decide to only shut down the old coal power generators at the end of their design lives. These measures will definitely contribute to international joint efforts to respond to climate change. So we are now going away with the coal power generation. And the third point I'd like to make is in the G20 leaders meeting, the issue, very important issue on climate change is how to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidy while safeguarding the need for the poorest over the medium term. I think Mr. Danaka, you have dealt that issue in IEA. Though the leaders agree to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidy in 2009, they cannot make any step forward from that declaration. No way. And even the U.S. under the Obama administration proposed that let's make it clear what is the medium term. And medium term need to be 2025. Even that proposal was rejected by India, Brazil, Russia, and Turkey. But now the experts say the fossil fuel subsidy need to be subsidized. So how we can, I think, scale with the leaders' declaration to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidy. And lastly, with regard to Andrea's point on hydro, I was an ambassador to the Philippines. Our support, I think, not only the Korea, but also Japanese support to the Philippine government to construct hydro, phase a very strong opposition from the locals. Daily is a question on environment. So it's very difficult to go forward with hydro in some developing countries. Thank you. Sure. Just coming back to the CCS, many people here may believe it's very costly to capture CO2. But technology is developing very quickly. And today the lowest cost of capture is $40 per ton. This is achieved by a British company called Clean Carbon Solution, run by Anil Shalma, my friend. And also in Japan, Kyoto University is working on special membrane with porous, nanoscale porous, which could capture CO2 one-tenth of current cost. But it takes another four to five years. They have to first build a private plant, but this is already on the horizon. And this kind of competition is ongoing everywhere. Their target is to make CCS and CCU profitable, commercially. And in today's world of competition for better technology, those changes will take occur much sooner rather than later. So my dream, and it won't be dream any longer in 10 years from now, CCS and CCU could be commercially viable options. And if you think about CCS in big coal-fired power plants, it's daunting to ask about. But if you think about CCS with steel mill or cement mill chemical plant in smaller scale, then you can achieve with all this pile of innovation, the cost will come down, and the competition will feel more pressing than cost. So we should believe in economic mechanism, competitive mechanism, towards better solution. And also, lastly, one point about hydro. Hydro is charming, but as Ambassador said, the environmental downside is too big. And also land-sand field in the dam, water dam, is a daunting task as well. So I don't see much prospect for hydro, and better not promote hydro because of environmental implication, both in developed and developing countries. Thank you.