 Thank you. An honour to be with KPMG. Vimbartel's Global Head of Sustainability was one of the first members of our global assurance working group looking at how to develop standards and criteria. I met him in Cancun in the climate change conference a few years ago and he's been fantastic. So thank you and thank you for being here and supporting this. An honour to be here with ISI because, you know, one of our first policy recommendations to any government around the world is they need an ISI. They need a Stephen Nolan. They need a champion within the public sector to help drive the kinds of changes that are required to shift capital in this area. So it's a privilege to be here. Thank you. I have a few points I'd like to make. I'm going to suggest that we ask, we do questions as we go through a little bit depending on for clarification especially. This is a story about an innovation when I have to say I don't normally like to use the word innovation and that's because we're an investment for the NGO and my investors stakeholders don't like innovation. They want safety, they want security. They're pension funds, they're insurance funds. So bear that in mind if you're at the point of marketing a green box. Don't call it innovation. Don't call it savings if you're up. I'm fresh from the cop as Carol was saying. It has been interesting the extent to which green bombs is on the agenda everywhere. I've suddenly realised for recording purposes, can I be away from the mic? Luke? Better if you're up there. Damn! Stephen, can you help me by tearing up this mic and chucking it around? Oh, here we go. I can't have the echo. Well that broke. Beautiful. I just don't want to have folks out the back missing out on this. It's extraordinary the extent to which green bombs have become flavour of the months. So literally, well I was speaking three times a day in cop. I was busy but every time I heard about a climate finance session I found they were speaking about green bombs. Now it's because it's a simple concept. I mean this guy here who's a finance guy knows there's not really a lot to it. At the end of the day it's marketing. It is marketing. But you know that's what we've got to do with this transition to a low carbon and climate resilient economy. We need to market the hell out of it. And God knows one of the things we know in finance and in business is too often we forget that marketing which is about matching need and product, service and need is not done well enough. And you know we have kind of failed miserably on the climate agenda. How is it that 20 years into discussions about climate we're still talking about taxes. You know this is how we're marketing the green transition. We need carbon taxes. This is bad marketing. We forget that if we make this transition to a low carbon and climate resilient economy we will see 30 years of stimulus investing. We will see 30 years of growth prospects. We will see 30 years of anti-austerity measures. That's actually more what we've got to hear about especially if you're a company. But look let me get into first the bad news that did come out of COP. So there are sort of three conferences at COP at the climate change conference in Paris. One is the government officials are sitting in a room, dark room and argue about brackets. There's a lot of stuff going on in brackets which basically means text they can't agree on. And until about week two there are about 85% of the text was in brackets. Only 15% was out of brackets. That's one job. That's the horrible job. The second thing that's going on is a climate finance session. This is the exciting part of it. We now had literally a dozen conferences going on where people talking about how to shift capital. So far so good. But the third area is a science conference. Now I'm going to tell you the science conference wasn't very good. I'm going to tell you that when you went to a session to hear people talking about what was happening to water and rainfall around the world now not in 10 years time. When you talk about sea level rise happening now, storm surge activity happening now let alone the projections for 20 years, honestly you'd need some kind of pills to look after yourself. It was pretty bleak and depressing and I don't know if you know but amongst climate scientists globally now there is actually an epidemic of depression. There's literature about it. If you go to the Lancet you will see articles about studying the epidemic of depression. Why? Because they've been telling us this for 20 to 30 years. And frankly we haven't been listening. We've been saying oh well there's a little economic crisis. Got to deal that first. We'll worry about climate later on. Oh no hang on. We've just got to build a few more houses. No hang on. We've got to actually deal the Syrian war or whatever it might be. Forgetting that we're beginning to experience some of the effects of climate change with our wars. Most climate scientists now will tell you that the Syrian war started with the failure of crops 2007, 2008, 2009. 1.9 million people moved off the land in Syria into cities. Lot of young men didn't have any work prospects. What did the Syrian government do to deal with that? They cracked down on them. Oh really clever idea guys. What about creating jobs for them? And out of that we've had conflict. This is not new. This is what we know about conflicts. They're created by large bodies of young people, young men specifically without war. One thing I can tell you about climate change we're going to see a lot of these kinds of crises. We think we're worried about a million people coming across the Mediterranean. We ain't seen nothing yet. This is what the next 30 years holds for Europe. And I don't think we're going to be able to build a war big enough to keep people out. We need to figure out how to address the economies they're coming from, how to keep them viable and how above all to keep young people in jobs. This is also the case within Europe. Vast unemployment in Spain, in Italy and in Greece. These are economic tragedies of our time. But they're going to get worse at the moment. The reason why this market has got going is because investors have begun to realize there are macro risks to their portfolio. If they look 40 years out, they have a problem. The Institute of Actuaries at the early last year in the UK put out a report saying that pension fund and insurance fund portfolios will be decimated by 2050 based on current projections. That is the current projections for climate change that the International Energy Agency gives us. The new CEO, former chief economist of the IA, Fati Birol, is on record as saying we are heading for a world of six to seven degrees average warming, which means average 10 degrees on land, probably 15 degrees in the Arctic. And that is catastrophic in his terms, catastrophic. Bearing in mind, we already have a fair bit of warming. We already have to invest in adaptation. Two metres sea level rises by 2050 are given. This is what I heard in Paris. Storm surge activity, increased severity, I think hurricane, sandy on steroids every three years. Storm surge activity down this river. I would like to see what's going to be happening here in 2030. Storm surge in the city of Dublin, there's going to be a lot of it. We're going to have to build up walls over there just by the side of the river to stop the water coming in in those storm surge periods on top of sea level rises. That's adaptation expenditure we have to have. We cannot avoid it. We know already that around the world there is going to be increased severity of rainfall change. In Boston, the Massachusetts Water Authority is already planning to increase the width of the stormwater channels because Boston, which gets rained a bit like here, is going to start getting dumps. Now think about what that means in dry climates. What it means are a lot of failures of monsoon. In India, the expectation is the monsoon may well fail one year in five. India is embarking on a vast program of water infrastructure, partly to clean up the Ganges. She's the filthiest river in the world, as far as I can figure, and partly to try and get water storage in place before these sort of crises hits. So that's what we're looking at. But that's done, right? That's what we've got to do. What we're now looking at is how to stop the catastrophic part, 6 to 7 degree warming. If we do get to that level, and you've got to bear in mind that for the last 20 years we have been tracking beautifully, perfectly, unbelievably exactly at the worst possible projection of the international panel on climate change. So we are heading resolutely, determinately towards 6 to 7 degree warming. That's what we're doing. We've got to get that down, and we've been leaving our run very late. If we get to 6 to 7 degree warming, well, God knows. The head of the German government's Climate Change Advisory Council, Joine Schellenhuber, says the difference between 2 degrees and 4 degrees warming is civilisation. And I have to say, it sounds pretty weird to say this by the banks of the River Liffey here. It sounds pretty weird of such a comfortable life in Ireland. But we are looking at failed states at scale. Some people say we will lose a third of the world's population. And I don't just mean from flooding. I mean, because what happens when you get failed economies? You get wars all over the place, and you get breakdowns of health systems. You get epidemics and pandemics. And what we know from previous crises in the Earth's history is that it's actually epidemics that kill people off. So there's a very good chance we will see SARS go wild, equivalent to diseases. I want you to be afraid. I'm afraid. Every time I meet a climate scientist, I think, for God's sake, Sean, stop laughing, stop smiling. This is serious. And it is. The stakes are actually very high. And it's not for us. It's for our children and our children's children. Because it'll be 2050, 2060, 2070, when this place is buggered as a result. So bear that in mind. Three, the climate science. And when you're talking to your politicians, to your leaders, there is a long-term tragedy unfolding in front of us, right in front of us, we're being told every day. OK, so that's the bad news. I can go into it in more detail if you would like. But I might just stop there and move on to a little bit of good news. We have two things going for us in the face of this tragedy. Two positive opportunities. The first thing is the International Energy Agency, when it talks about what we have to do to avoid catastrophic climate change. It says, well, you know what? Nearly everything we do, nearly everything we have to do, can be classified as green infrastructure. There is an agricultural agenda, mainly avoided deforestation. But the rest of it is mobility, low-carbon transport. It's energy, clean energy. It's buildings. We did all these buildings over there to go low-carbon. Funnily enough, we can do that profitably. There's a bunch of people in this room that can tell you about the payback periods on energy efficiency investments in buildings. It's things like water infrastructure, both for mitigation. In California, 17% of the state's electricity is used to pump water around, 12% alone to pump it to Los Angeles. You manage that better. You recycle your water, for example, like Singapore now does. If you go to Singapore and get bottled water in a 7-11, that bottled water is out of the toilet. It's 100% recycled. Tastes okay, I can tell you. I was a bit squeamish the first time. That's what we're going to have to do in Los Angeles instead of using all that power to bring water from the Colorado River, which is drying up. All our societies need this scale of investment. The International Energy Agency explains that the bulk of what we have to do can be characterized as investable infrastructure. Investable infrastructure. Now think about that. This opens up an opportunity because actually we know how to get investment into infrastructure. We've been doing it. Look at those bridges out there. Look at the railway lines. Look at the freeways we built, the hospital. They've all been done by tapping private capital in one form or another. Government bonds or maybe private sector leasehold arrangements or the M50 tollway or things like those. These are the ways we know to get infrastructure funded. We have the toolkit. We've been doing it successfully in the Western world for 150 years. It is not new science and it does not require a carbon price. God knows on what a carbon price but we're not going to get a real one for 10 to 15 years. Unfortunately, it's been game. That's life. There's a toolkit there. It is only one of the tools that we have available to us. We have floor pricing. We have feeding tariffs. Sure, a bit in a fiscally inefficient but God knows whatever works at this particular stage. We have guarantees, partial guarantees. We have regulatory measures. We have cute things like the way the Japanese government in the 1960s decided to get capital to go into nuclear. It's simply legislated. Hurrah, to make nuclear bonds issued by utilities, senior debt. Now, slightly crazy but it kind of worked. So whenever TEPCO, and this is for better or for worse, don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of nuclear but the instrument was interesting. Whenever TEPCO or other electricity companies issued a bond where the money went to nuclear, it got treated as senior debt and therefore was seen as more attractive and lowered the cost of capital and encouraged them to do more of it. That helped grow the nuclear industry. In fact, when you look at the history of financial regulations, the world is littered with ideas along these. We have in China where they have discount loan requirements, capital ratio requirements for banks are differentiated if you're lending to rural communities. Simple. And there's various things along those lines that we could easily copy. So, so far, so good. The second thing we've got going for us, the other extraordinary opportunity of our era is that we have a world of wash and capital looking for a home to go. I mean, this seems a bit crazy. We've been in recession for how many years? Seven years now. Six, eight years. We are paying the German government to take our money and the Swiss government and the Swedish government and others. We have got negative interest rates in Europe and yet we have capital everywhere, hanging around in cash. Do you know that the Siemens has 16 billion euros on deposit with the European Central Bank? What the hell? You'd think Siemens would be able to find some investable opportunities. What we know about investable opportunities at scale in the infrastructure space is they have to be manufactured by government. The government's got to do the planning, the zoning, all of those things to create the opportunity. And that's where we've been sitting in our hands in Europe. This is one of the things we can do to get capital moving, create opportunities. And of course, the place where the biggest opportunities lie in the future is the emerging market. In India, pretty well the whole country is going to be rebuilt between now and 2030. There is yield. There is lack of engagement. European investors don't know a lot about India. I spent a lot of time there. I actually believe that the new government's renewable energy targets, 175 gigawatts by 2022, are going to be achieved because of what's happening on the ground and wandering around speaking to developers about the planning and other sorts of support. The Indian Railways, the world's biggest railway network, has set up a single agent lead just for one strategy, which is to cover all their railway stations around India with solar and the land around them. And they're going to be issuing green bonds to finance that, by the way. So we have a world of washing capital. We've got to do more things like the Indians are doing to create yield. Now, I'm not talking about high risk. I don't think there's a lot of appetite for discount loans in the US to subprime loans. I think we've got to have a middle ground. The global appetite at the moment in the bond market, I would call triple B plus to A minus. So that's what we have to create in terms of risk appetite. The difficulty is, if you're in renewable and other areas, is it tends to come in at junk bond or triple B minus. So we're going to need a little bit of uplift here. And there's a way we do that. We use the public sector to bridge just a little bit. We don't need to provide 100% guarantees. In fact, I call that a dereliction of duty when the government provides 100% guarantees to things nowadays. We need to provide a little bit of fiscally efficient guarantees to make sure that the green investments meet the risk reward requirements of our pension funds and insurance funds, our pension funds and insurance funds so they can pay our pensions in 20 years and 30 years. That's what the game is. The European Investment Bank has to be converted from a direct lending facility into a leverage facility. KFW, IFC, all of these have to make that transition to crowd-in private capital. In fact, when you look at the scale of capital required, there's no way this can be done without a close partnership between private and public capital. Even China says this. The People's Bank of China put out a report that we had a little bit of a contribution to in March which talked about the scale of investment that they believe they need every year, $4 trillion, remember? They reckon that only 15% is going to be able to come from the public sector and the rest has to come from the private split between domestic and international capital sources. That is one of the things that's driving China's opening up to overseas investors. They need them. If you're in a pension fund, they need us and that'll be very useful for the global economy. So one problem but two damn big opportunities sitting behind this particular problem. Yes? Could you just address the motivations of the pension and the institutional investors who spoke about the lack of product but I suspect it's a unit that's a lot more than that? Look, the primary motivation is that they have an increasing awareness of long-term risk like at the UN Climate Summit September before last, $43 trillion worth of investors signed statements saying climate change was a big problem for their portfolios, they want to come back and they stood ready to invest. That was one. But their actual investment practices have a three to five year horizon and that's hard to fix, right? So how do you address 40 year risk within five year portfolio management? Well, it's quite hard. We're working on them recalibrating risk. They're thinking that coal might have a premium attached to it they hadn't realized before, et cetera. We're getting there. But in the meantime, there's an easy solution. If you give them two bonds, one of comparable pricing, comparable risk, one of them has a bonus feature that it goes to address their 40 year macro risk and the other one doesn't. Well, why wouldn't you? It's the fundamental premise of this market and that's what they're telling us and that's why they're buying and that's why green bonds in this space are typically three, four, five times over subscribed at the moment. We have the demand. So we now have some, well, in our, the socially responsible investor market is the core. People claim there's about 21 trillion of them globally. That's about a bit less than a quarter of the global institutional investment market, which is around 90 trillion. We have a whole bunch of funds that are doing dedicated mandates on pushed by asset managers. So BlackRock, Actium, Aviva, Lyons and a few others have made announcements in the last few months. We have some bank treasuries doing it for marketing reasons. Deutsche Bank, Barclays, for example, making billion pound commitments to green bonds. We have a whole bunch of public sector issuers now doing it to try and grow the market. Norge Bank, KFW, IFC. And then in the last few months, we've flushed out a whole series of central banks. In fact, last week, Bangladesh made an announcement that they're gonna have a green bond buying program. They've actually been doing it for two years. They haven't announced it. Well, when National Finance Chair, the Mexican Development Bank put out there, green bond a few, a couple months ago, a certified green bond, they had, I think, five central banks on their register specifically for the green. The Chinese central bank, the Japanese central bank, the Bangladesh and a European one, I can't remember who it was. Very interesting, right? So these are, this is not what you call additionality because these are people who may already be candidates to invest, but they say they particularly want the green and they would choose green over ordinary because of their own sense of macro risks to the portfolio. So one of the interesting things has been the extent to which governments are now taking up this idea that we've been promoting very heavily this last year of using their public sector investing resources also to push demand in this market. So that's the background to what's going on. In fact, at Paris, we launched a statement with 11 trillion of investors signing it saying we want green bonds, we're gonna work to grow the market, et cetera. So we've got demand in space. That's why it's a relatively simple proposition for them. So I mean, I don't want to say that there aren't some hard things to be done in making this transition. You know, fundamentally, we have to rebuy us our economies. We've got to wind down fossil fuel subsidies as the OECD keeps telling us, which is still 10 to one in favor of fossil fuel over green subsidies globally. But beginning to see progress, Iran, a decision on Iran, Indonesia and India phased out fossil fuel subsidies when oil dropped. Perfect timing. Germany still has fossil fuel subsidies, by the way. We need to be looking at lifter, more credit enhancement subsidies and all those sorts of things. And I've got a whole publication I can share with you if you want. But what we're doing with this green bond market is tackling discovery. We're making it easy for these guys who are worried to find stuff that is green. That's fundamentally it. So let's have a look at where we've gone with this market. That's the growth of the labeled market in the last few years. Didn't grow as fast as it would have liked last year, but it should double this year. It started off largely Development Bank and then we've seen a growth of that corporate bond market. Now this is, if I dare use that word, I tried to disavow earlier, innovative. These are corporations that are issuing corporate credit, corporate back bonds where the proceeds are earmarked. That is unusual. So we have EDF, we have GDF Suez, we have Bank of America, we have ABN Amrow, and so on. They issue a corporate bond with a full corporate rating, but they promise ScoutsHonor to only use the money for green investments. So far, so good. But do you trust the bank? Sorry, how many bankers in the room here? You probably don't trust them on the green aspect. You might trust them some other things. So what we've seen in this market to make it work is the growth of an independent review, which is where you get an outside party with some credentials to sign off on whether your bond is kosher. That's a simple thing to do. We managed to keep the transaction relatively cost and I'll talk, relatively low cost. I'll talk more about that in a minute. And that's allowed this market to grow. We've seen the Muni market grow, mainly US, but also Europe, municipal bonds. And now you're beginning to see asset-backed securities down here. So quite an interesting projection path. Now, I will say it's still small. 42 billion out of 100 trillion globally is not huge, but it's enough to get headlines. Features, very diverse wide range of issuers. Independent review required, generally. You can't get your bond listed on the London Stock Exchange as a green bond unless you have an independent review. That's a test. There's been the evolution of standards. I'll come back to that. Strong demand over subscription. Now, we really need supply. I guess the other feature about this is that it's around the asset, not the entity. So it kind of doesn't matter how well you perform on the Dow Jones Sustainability Index. We don't care. What we care is, is there a solar farm there or not? Is there a clean water investment that addresses adaptation risk or not? Is there a railway line or not? Which opens it up to a lot more issuers. So Total, an oil company, happens to have a division which is the second largest solar developer in the world. We're pushing Total to do green bonds backed by their fossil fuel balance sheet to finance green, earmark towards green. As far as I'm concerned, this is a win-win. You use fossil fuel credit risk to create green investments. Perfect. We've already seen this with GDF Suez, which is fundamentally a gas company. They raised money to allocate to their renewable energy projects. Very successful. A whole lot of investors who wouldn't touch GDF Suez because they didn't like the fossil fuel aspects could suddenly buy the bond. So for GDF Suez, it was great. They liberated a new class of investors in their bonds. Is that a better pricing? Oh, someone had to spoil the party. I have to be very careful about pricing. The answer is a complicated one. Bond markets, when they develop, don't start with differential pricing as a rule. They start with flat pricing. In other words, you've got to find other reasons to do it. Governments generate bond markets to provide diversity of funding sources for corporations over time. So when you get there, you say, well, actually it's about the same as a loan, same pricing as a loan. It's just a different instrument and this will grow into a future line of credit that you can get and you'll get different suppliers of credit. That's how they start. Well, this has been much the same in this market. So in the early stages of this market, pretty well, flat pricing was the norm. In fact, in the first couple of years, there was a seesawing. Shouldn't it be a premium one way or a premium another way? And the investors say, oh, illiquidity risk, I want a premium. And the issuers say, cost me to put it out, I want a premium, et cetera. We settled on flat pricing thanks to the IFC, putting out a couple of billion dollar benchmark bonds in 2013. And that's really how it's grown. So the people who've issued are people who get other benefits. If you don't get other benefits, not worth it. Issue of diversification, loyalty. KFW, for example, when they issued their green bond, they discovered that there's shock and horror that investors want to know more. They thought they owned the market. They thought their investors were rusted on. No, investors started phoning up and say, oh, we've always wanted to know more about this green stuff, can you tell us? So they got what they call stickiness in spades. You get tenor. This is a longer tenor market, because people are quite comfortable to buy and hold, and insurance investors are one of the big drivers of it. So you get those sort of benefits in the early stages. You get reputational marketing. The CEO loves it. A lot of bonds have been started by the CEO. You tend not to get price in the first year. But you see something happening in year two and year three, which we're now seeing in Europe. Because the demand remains strong, the secondary market pricing is very positive, very strong, because there's hardly any sales. In fact, it's terrible for stock exchanges, because they want to put up a green bonds listing and get trading. But actually, anyone who buys a green bond tends to hang onto it. If they're going to sell off Bank of Ireland's bonds, they'll sell off the non-green ones first, because the green ones have a bonus feature. It's like getting a free set of steak knives. You want to hang onto it. Now, as a result, it's a big market in the secondary market. As a result, Barclay says there's about a 20 basis point difference now between directly comparable green and non-green bonds. As a result, you are seeing primary price benefit. So in year three, I'm going to call it the European market. Yes. You see ING coming to market just before Christmas with about a 10 basis points advantage on their billion euro bond. And that's what you're beginning to see. But it's patchy. It's not certain yet. We're getting there. Price will eventually come from incentives, and there's a bit of organic price movement. How long will that demand remain strong is a question every treasurer's going to worry about. We actually think there's another five or 10 years of it for a variety of reasons, but that's a bit. So I've got to be cautious here, because any banker will tell you, don't go to market doing it just for the price. You may not get it, but you might get an ING price this market. Generally, I would say two basis points is pretty safe. There's a big bond that's worth the money. 10 basis points is occasional, but we're seeing it more frequently. Is that reasonable? At the back. I didn't quite understand the question. Are there any modern lines left? Look, the structuring is exactly the same as any other bond of the market and any type of bonds can be issued. This is a separate issue to the structuring. So this is whether you're doing an asset back, the project that recourse the bond, recourse the revenues, or a corporate or a sovereign for that matter. This market is primarily about how the proceeds are used in an environmental sense and how they're allocated. So no difference to the structuring. In fact, if that wasn't the case, this wouldn't work. These are box standard bonds. There are some recourse bonds. There's a couple out there. Hazy, Hannah Armstrong in the US has an asset back security made up of a mixture of energy efficiency equipment and solar cash flows. And then Toyota's done something as well. Most so far, a corporate, we will see more asset back very near. We just certified a green RMBS out of a European country and we think that'll be the beginning of that. Does anyone know any model lines? They're gone, I think, as far as they're dead. There's a new one starting up in the US, but I don't know of any that still exists, I'm afraid. So that's, I think it's a pre-2008 story at the moment. I hope I'm wrong, but. So we're who are supporting them, occasionally, are public sector institutions. So the IFC and the EIB both have credit support programs to give a little bit of uplift to certain classes of bonds. So very narrow at the moment. That's one of the things we're pushing going forward. Make sense? Okay, so that's what we've got so far in the market. So let me just take a couple of, a next step. These are the kinds of assets we're seeing so far. Yes, largely renewable energy. A bit of energy efficiency, which is mainly green building. In fact, it's 90% green buildings. So that's the whole portfolio value is counted, not just the energy efficiency input, if the building qualifies as green. Transport mainly rail, but also there's a bit of energy efficiency, Toyota bonds for low carbon vehicles. Sustainable water, waste and pollution, agriculture and forestry, climate adaptation generally. So as you can see, there's a few other assets being to creep in this particular place. In fact, the number of issuers are doing what I call corporate portfolio bonds. So ANZ Bank has got a pool of assets that includes in its bond underlying assets, a mixture of green property and renewable energy. So it varies from bank to bank how they approach it. Bit like the development banks do. It's spreading across the world. We've seen quite a lot of emerging market issuance this year and now we've got regulations driving the market in China and India. So we expect it to grow as this year comes along. Of course, the labeled green market is really only about this big. We have a market of about 600 billion of what we would call outstanding climate related bonds. Two thirds of rail. Now most investors two years ago, when I said rail, I said rail? What's so green about rail? Well, actually in the context of climate change, low carbon mobility is absolutely essential. Get cars of the road, get planes out of the air, get people traveling on high speed rail and so on. So you've got a lot of rail. China, for example, the largest high speed rail network funded by rail bonds. Quite good transparency in that area. Now our goal is to make the label market take over this 600 billion market. I've got a couple of reports about the full 600 billion universe with me. So this will be fast growth for the market. This will give us liquidity very quickly and scale. This will make the investors very happy. What we want to do is to get a trillion dollars a year by 2020. That's what we do to be successfully addressing climate change in terms of what the IEA tells us. There's the report. These are the, this is the climate bonds certification scheme. KPMG is one of our verifiers. There's a whole lot globally. A bond back board, back by 34 trillion dollars of investments, developing clear science frameworks and standards. It means you could include a whole lot of things. It's not just energy. That's about 10%. It's low carbon buildings. We think that's gonna get about 40% of the green bond market by 2018. It's transport. It's sustainable water of various sorts. Methane reduction cycling. We saw it recycling. We saw an 800 million euro bond from Prophec in France a couple of years ago. Sorry, last year. Agriculture, forestry, and even ICT and broadband in Ireland, broadband could be the backing for a bond because that is a critical enabling technology for the low carbon economy. This is a guide for governments. We've done a couple of years ago how to rapidly grow green bond markets. A number of governments like California and Brazil are currently following through on the copy book. So we launched in Paris a green infrastructure investment coalition, about 15 trillion of direct investors plus the principles for responsible investor involved. Its goal is to put green investment plans as attachments to the INDCs, the climate change plans governments have put up to the COP, the Climate Change Conference, and essentially to grow infrastructure investing. In fact, to merge the green and the infrastructure agendas globally. The G20 has those in two separate working groups. This is crazy. Ireland, I understand, has brought them together recently. So Ireland is a leader in this concept. Now we're going to make it happen, of course. Let's talk about where we are next. Just a wrap up. So far, we've had a fair amount of success at growing investor demand. We've had a fair amount of success at getting a market going. We've had a fair amount of success of getting a few governments, some very big governments like China, engaged. But we've got a lot of work to do. In 2016, we do expect to see substantial growth for market in emerging markets as well as in Europe, hopefully in the US too, which is a bit of a laggard because this issue is stuck between Republicans and Democrats. We believe in the Capital Markets Union, we will see a lot of European Union push in this area. Green bonds are mentioned in the Capital Markets Union, albeit still in a small kind of way. ABS and project bonds are something by the end of this year, we want to see a substantial theme. But the first thing we want to see is sovereigns. So we currently have four governments in a race to get at the first sovereign. I would love to see Ireland join that race, it shouldn't be hard to do guys, come on. If the UK can do it, if the France can do it, if Canada can do it, and if China can do it and all of them have working parties, then Ireland can find a way to do it. Now you can probably move more quickly than they can. You may be able to be the first jet if you can get your treasuries here to look at the idea seriously. But sometime in the next three months, we're gonna see the first global sovereign. I believe the Chinese central bank is looking at a very large scale issuance coming out. Policy, we have to merge green and infrastructure. We need to get treasuries involved, not environment ministries. Generally what I say is, the way you tell whether a climate finance discussion is serious is whether it's the environment minister involved or the treasury minister. Just go home with the environment minister, there's just no point. Sorry guys, sorry, sorry. But frankly there is no point. When the environment minister has got the treasurer to turn up, then we know we're getting traction and it's worth a serious conversation. The climate change conference started off as a conference of environment ministers. This year we saw a few treasurers as well as prime ministers and presidents. By 2020 we want just a treasury conference. Prime ministers can keep away, they're just politicians. We want treasuries who are making decisions about capex, about tax and so on in the room. That's how we'll know we're being successful. Ireland of course is a very interesting place in so many ways. It's a small economy but a robust economy and a tightly knit economy. It's robust now, it's improving. There's no reason why this economy couldn't be and shouldn't be the laboratory for Europe for how to do this. You know, you should be seeing yourself as an erase of the scanties who are small economies trying to make it in the world as well. Well, you could get ahead very quickly on a green finance agenda. You know, it's early stages of this market but you've got to move this year. One of the things and one of the reasons we're signing this partnership with ISI and Stephen here is we're very keen to see Ireland start looking at some aggressive measures to establish a reputation and to show other people how to do it. You don't need scale for that. You need demonstrative issuance. You need demonstrative investment and you need demonstrative government policy to drive it. We've got a whole kit bag of government policies to look at if you're interested. So let's think about how that can work. Let's think starting off with a green sovereign bond. Let's think starting off with this guy's bank issuing a bond, let alone his competitor. Bank of Ireland, AIB and others should be in this market. It would be an easy step to get going. Remember that the next stage of the market is uncovering what's being done and making sure it's labeled appropriately so investors can find it easily and quickly. Then the next stage is the turbo-charging growth with government policy and once we've established aggressive investor demand in Ireland. That we can do easily. It is the challenge for Europe too and this is where Ireland can play an important role. Europe has to shift now out of an austerity model, unthinking of future growths. We need to restart our growths with green infrastructure investing. Soak up unemployment with that but make sure it's economic multiplier style investment. That's the opportunity for us. Otherwise, we will be a second-rate economy in 20 years and it'll be India and China, I can tell you, who are rapidly moving towards becoming green economies that take over this space. It's not necessary. We have the expertise. We have the skills. That's the opportunity. And you know what? When you're aware of the risks, the dangers to our economy, to our environment, to our children's lives, you kind of have an obligation to act. If there's a fire burning across the street, we all have a duty to act. Here we can see the danger. It's clear. This gives us the privilege of an area where we can act. That's what I hold out to you. Thank you.