 I want now to turn to you, Mr. Narendra Tajajna, Chairman of the Independent Energy Policy Institute of New Delhi, founder, president of the World Energy Policy Summit. Please, the floor is yours. Thanks, Chair, for the opportunity. And since the theme of our team, you know, we are focusing in this conference more on global governance, and that's precisely what I'm trying to, you know, in the context of energy, of course. You see, until very recently, if you go by statements coming from top leaders in the OECD countries, most particularly like the United States, and they all were used to say that energy policy and climate policy are two sides of the same coin. The big statement by Mr. John Kerry when he was Secretary of State of the Munich Security Conference, and I was sitting in the fifth row, and I was very happy, and I made a big note of it, and I repeated that at least in 20 conferences. But now, we don't hear it anymore. Now they say the climate is different and energy is different, or they just go silent on it. You see, when you look at the climate, like COP summits and other platforms under the UN and all that, we by now have created a kind of a global governance structures and some infrastructure, and some rules. So there is a kind of global governance emerging as far as the, you know, climate is concerned. But the way we look at it from Asia, you know, we are sitting in Asia by the way, majority of you are from different, mostly OECD countries, but Abu Dhabi is in Asia as you know, and I come from, this is Delhi, which is just three hours away from here, by air. And now we see that, you know, when it comes to energy, even to talk about building some kind of, you know, governance is unacceptable. I have proposed it in five different conferences, last 12 months, in Western Europe. They don't even want to listen to you. Who are you, what are you talking, you know? And that's very unhealthy. You, if, and I strongly believe in this, energy policy, energy security, climate policy, climate security are two sides of the same coin. If we're rejected, we are compromising with our future. I mean, the OECD countries or the so-called Global North is very happy to build that kind of thing for climate. But for energy, no. The most optimistic people within the Global North, if you talk about building such a, you know, order, they say, oh, we have got international energy agency. But I say, haven't you read the constitution of the international energy? India and China can't be members. And there are many within IEA. Some of you may disagree. They don't want India and China to be kind of full-fledged members. IEA has a different DNA with all due respect. So now you see the problem we have, we face when we look at, at the same time, when you look at the global GDP, energy occupies huge space. In India, for instance, when you look at the energy sector, it's roughly 23% of India's GDP of 3.5 trillion on nominal basis. And if you go PPP basis, India's economy is roughly $8.6 trillion. Oil and gas alone is about 15%. And we are heavily dependent, like in India, on imports. 86% of oil we import. 60% gas we import. Nuclear, uranium we import. And solar, we are emerging as a major solar power, solar energy power. But 90% of the equipment are imported, mostly from China. So therefore, you know, I mean, we keep talking about, and I personally am always pushing for it, that we need to build some kind of global energy governance. Yes, there is OPEC. OPEC is a cartel. IA, yes, it takes care of the OECD's country's interest. And there are a few others for renewables and international energy forum and so forth. But the point is that, you know, unless and until we agree, now the biggest challenge today is that majority of people, majority of OECD countries are not open to have even a discussion on this issue. How can you build a kind of sustainable climate global governance without building a sustainable energy global governance order? How can you do that? I don't really see it happening on a sustainable basis. You can build it, but then you will face challenges. And we are already facing these challenges, you know, since the Ukraine war. Now, the point I'm trying to drive home is that look at, for instance, the present crisis. There is no global governance for energy. There is no organization for that. And we don't even have very institutionalized platforms or global, you know, kind of, you know, conversation on this issue. Ukraine war happens and look at the reaction of, for instance, Europe. The immediate first reaction of Europe is that they have started building, my friend may not agree with me, but building kind of energy fortress for Europe. Concern is Europe. Build a fortress. Go to Canada with a huge delegation, the German Chancellor. Go to Saudi Arabia. Go to Qatar. A ship that, LNG ship that was going to empower Bangladesh was only 200 miles away from LNG import terminals in Bangladesh was rivaled to Germany. What are we talking about then? And you think that we can build a sustainable, you know, global climate governance? How? And you think you build an energy fortress for Europe, and you'll be fine. And if India buy a few drops of more oil from Russia, you spend half of your energy just, you know, taking India to task. Not mentioning China even once, which imports much more. Or Europe. What India has imported the last five months, six months from Russia, you know, what Europe has imported from Russia the last eight months, it will take us five years to import that kind of quantity. But silence. Because we are global north. We are rich. Don't question us. Forgetting one thing. If you look at data, look at statistics, look at honest studies, the global energy gravity center has already moved to Asia. It's no longer in the Atlantic. Just go by data. Look at the major, where the majority of consumers. So what is this approach? You don't, can't even have conversation on this. When I come to conferences, especially in Europe, I find that you are sitting in an echo chamber. They're very happy if you are kind of talking, they're happy talking to each other. But if you bring in the truth or the reality with cold statistics, you face China walls. Or you're just ignored, sometimes even ignored by the moderator. Can't we have honest conversation? Don't you want to prepare for the new world that is emerging? The new kind of global governance order that is emerging? A new energy order which has started emerging. This energy order that we have got actually came into being in the early 1970s. It's the first time it has been challenged, seriously. Now the point is all I'm trying to say is that we need to kind of have conversation. Just building a fortress for Europe is not going to help because it's not sustainable. Depriving poor Bangladesh is not going to buy more gas and store it. Store it, by the way. And you feel you're going to be secure forever. What is this mindset? What is this mindset? So these are the questions we need to ask. Put on the table. And we won't need to have conversation. No point sitting in echo chamber talking to yourself that if we can protect Europe and America, NATO Secretary General Mr. Stoltenberg, a couple of months ago I listened to his press conference, CNN, he is Secretary General of NATO. With all due respect to him, and I happen to know him personally because I've spent many years of my life in Norway. I knew even his father. Now he mentioned energy security record nine times in a press conference of 35 minutes. And he said, I'm going to go to the Secretary General. And there were people in the room, in one of the conferences I was recently, they said we need to build energy in NATO. Energy in NATO. Now what are we talking about? Are we kind of planned to push these 6 billion people or 6.7 billion people who live in the global south to some other planet? How do we go there? It's not happening. All that we can do is to have, you know, a conversation and build our kind of energy future in such a way that we can do it. Let me come to energy transition. What is energy transition? What is so new about it? Energy transition has been happening for 200 years. In India we used to run, you know we are a railways country, we used to run trains, actually we use wood as a fire for the steam engine. Then came coal. Then came electricity. Now we are even thinking and looking at using wherever we can, for instance, LNG. What we are basically need to look at is energy transitions. Transitions. I mean, it depends on your situation, your ground reality, your circumstances. In Germany they may do it faster. Good luck to them. In Norway they may do it even faster. Very good luck to them. But in India and some other economies, it may take longer. It may take 30 years, may take 40 years. Even Germany, they created an energy model and they talked about it globally. They sponsored so many conferences all around the world. Here is the German energy model. What happened to that? Where is that? Has it gone on holiday? Now those are the questions we need to ask. Look at the energy narratives that you see around the world. Global energy narratives. Whether on climate or on energy. Where these narratives are a constructed. Where? And then, if you are a smaller economy, then push down through your throat. You have to accept them. We saw in Paris Climate Summit, there were 60 countries against something, a resolution. Overnight they all started supporting. We know what happened that night. Now the point I'm trying to derive from is that when it comes to building global narratives for climate, for energy, this has to be, the whole process needs to be democratized. This process is monopolized by the global north. Yes, you have great think tanks. Yes, you have great people. Yes, you have many private concertencies also. They can do that. They can write better. The English is better. The grammar is better. The German may be better and so on and so forth. But aren't we kind of share the same planet? Can't we have more consultations? Can't we help developing countries, some of those countries that are not as big as India, China, develop this capability and then capacity so that we can have a more democratic kind of process to build this global narrative? You build narratives. You control CNN. You control BBC. You control what is the German channel called B.A.V.L. or something, whatever. So now the point is that, you know, and then is disseminated globally. We got to kind of, we need to democratize it. If you, the whole process, climate and energy are too, if you ask me today the biggest challenges for the humankind, we need to democratize the whole process. And at the same time, you know, we need to, the time has come. My sense is the time has come whether you're global north or global south, whether you're very rich or very poor, somebody who's very rich can become very pure in 50 years from now. India can become a 32-dollar economy in 30 years according to PWC, not me, and so on and so forth. But the point is these things keep changing. Those who are, those of you who are familiar with history would know that from 180 till 18 and at 26, India and China were the biggest economies on the planet. India and China together accounted for 53% of global GDP. It changed, you know, after India became a colony, Britain and so on and so forth. Now, and this may change again. Who knows, in 30 years maybe sooner. Now the point here is that we need to kind of sit together, build these narratives together. And also the last point I want to kind of put on the table is that, you know, we have got global intergovernmental organizations for everything. Health and education and you name it, trade and whatnot and whatnot, which is great. We need that. Now we are also building this kind of, you know, framework and infrastructure for climate, which is superb. We need it. But how can we leave energy which is the most important part of the whole story out of it? Why there is no intergovernmental organization, global organization dedicated to energy? So that if there was some crisis, let's say post Ukraine, we could have a kind of like energy security council or something like that and discuss this issue so that Europe didn't have to build a fortress at the cost of Bangladesh, poor Bangladesh. Now my point is that why can't we have a global, I put this on the table for discussion and also that north or south, global north or global south, we need to kind of, you know, have conversation and create, build a new organization with all due respect to IEA. And new organization which is intergovernmental, truly global, you know, dedicated to energy and preferably, preferably headquartered in a country or in a area or in a geography which is now the new gravity center of the global economy. I just put it on the table. And I'm just having, I'm speaking from my heart, I was carrying some notes, I've ignored my notes and I know that I'm in a minority in most places but we are meeting in Asia, this is the new gravity center and so I've been extremely honest and if you agree with it, it is fine but if you don't, at least I have put it on the table and I feel happy about it. Thanks for your attention. Thank you very much for your insightful comments. I would like to hear you or do you have some reactions or questions? Yes, please sir. Thank you for your perspective on the global south and the need for global governance. I would like to say that, you know, the COPS meeting are a dialogue for all countries and there's been an immense failure when you think that since we have COPS meetings we have broken CO2 concentration in the atmosphere records every year, every year. So if I may suggest that before we think of dialogues and governance and everything else, we should think of innovation and what is the South's part in new innovation for energy? That is the key. My experience is that I reached out to the BABA Research Institute for Nuclear Energy in India and they told me that they cannot work with private enterprise. You have to be a public enterprise. That's the only country where I have that problem. So I put it back to you. If you want the global south to be part of the solution you have to change the way things work for innovation, not just for dialogues, more innovation and I think India has immense resources, intellectual resources. It's proven all around the world but the structure of policy making in India is a problem for innovation in many ways, especially about energy and in particular about nuclear energy which is part of the solution. Thank you. Can I reply? Thank you, sir. Please. Very quickly. You see, first of all, I was talking of the whole world. I was not thinking only of India when I spoke but coming to your point, yes, I agree with you on innovation across global south and also across global north. I deal with both. I spend nine years of my life in Europe. Very familiar with global north. Travel all the time. Yes, BABA Atomic Center, you said they might have this thing but there are lots of other institutions. There are lots of other private sector companies now venturing into nuclear power. And so there are many others. If you want, I can give you a few references but this particular institute might have its own policy. It's the oldest one, by the way. It's the oldest one. It was created at the time when, you know, I mean, India was, there are many countries who basically would object every time we drew something in the space of energy even for peaceful purposes. So it's a legacy institute you're referring to, legacy center. So it might have its own old mindset but BABA Atomic Center is not the only place in India. You're talking of an ocean. India is an ocean. What you talked about is this very, very tiny little island somewhere. Yes, but I agree with you that even that island needs to change. I will convey this thing to the concerned minister at least. Thank you, sir. Friedberg, you want to say something? Friedberg Flüger from Germany. I think he was exactly right. I agree very much with what Narendra said. Pardon? It doesn't work? Closer. Okay. So I think Narendra did very well. Let me explain why I believe this. Looking to the United States, and we haven't discussed this so far, they came up with the so-called IRA, Inflation Reduction Act, 370 billion they put into climate neutral technologies, subsidize them, and that will lead to a situation that all those technological innovations, be they nuclear or CCS in every case, will be sucked off by the United States. We see that already when it comes to e-fuels, to hydrogen, that projects that have been designated for other parts of the world now go to the United States because this is such a huge program. And I would really share this fear of a fortress Europe. LNG was discussed. Yes, my country has a lot to do with the problems that we have right now because we saw the reliance on Russian gas and we didn't do anything against it. Why didn't we do this? Because it was in the interest of our economy. It was the only way, by the way, that the German energy intensive industry could survive because US LNG, LNG from other parts of the world was much too expensive. We would not have been able to keep competitiveness. But nevertheless, we believe that we are responsible for large parts of that situation. And now what we do, and that is double standards, and I fully agree, we suck all the LNG in the world market because we can pay better than the Bangladeshis, than the Egyptians. So all the LNG that is out there comes back to Europe. What happens? Those countries go back to coal. That's bad for climate, and it's bad for international relations because exactly that feeling amounts. And if we then go to Sharm el Sheikh as Germans or Europeans, Mr. Timamats, EU Vice President, and teaches other countries and say, well, you should do better on the climate front. While we just have pushed them again back to coal, it's absolutely unacceptable. And therefore, I have full understanding for this, in my point of view, wrong approach to take out climate and believe we could do every year more ambitious goals, better ambitious goals for every sector, and not see what that means for the energy world in the whole. So I fully applaud with you, and we should really think of building an institution which combines climate and energy. One could not have said that better than you, Narendra. Thank you very much. Mr. Friedberg has a will to include the private sector in the dialogue, otherwise we see that it doesn't work.