 Good afternoon everybody they're very very welcome to this webinar this afternoon on reflections from the COP to the conference of parties which is happening in Dubai Abu Dhabi since the 30th of November and conclude on the 12th of December. I'm Fergal MacDemara and I'm going to chair this session this afternoon. I'm really delighted to welcome four on the ground in Dubai distinguished experts who I will introduce one by one and in turn in a few moments. They will give us the state of play on discussions and the negotiations that are happening on the ground in the United Arab Emirates. And you also can join in this discussion by please putting your questions or observations into the Q&A function on the Zoom as they occur to you please don't wait till the end put them in as soon as they occur to you. And for those of you using X or Twitter please use the hashtag at IIA. This whole session will be on the record the remarks of the panelists plus the Q&A afterwards. And first up I'm really delighted to welcome to the webinar Kevin O'Sullivan and Kevin is the environment and science editor in the Irish Times. And it's a special interest in climate change and environmental protection networks. Kevin you're very welcome to our webinar and maybe I could start with you and ask you you're sort of almost a weekend to the COP at this point. I think tomorrow Thursday is a rest day and how are things how things been going they seem to get off to a flying start with the loss of damage fund and then we had some pessimism creeping about the phase out of fossil fuels. What's your take on how's it how's it going out there from where you're sitting. Thank you. Thanks for delighted to be with you and I overall I have a very positive but actually maybe I'm I'm being naive and I've been disappointed at previous cops when big measures looked on the cards and then we're diluted out sometimes in the last seconds of a cop has happened in Glasgow, but firstly we got off to a very good start and the structure of a loss and damage fund to help developing countries and particularly climate vulnerable countries and was agreed in advance after some difficult technical discussions and then. And it was agreed by the parties very quickly in the first hours of COP 28 here in Dubai and that was a really good trust builder between parties and. Immediately people started giving very significant sums of money to the loss and damage fund and I think it's probably approaching $1 billion now. But of course, as you and your audience knows it, we will need many billions of dollars, particularly challenge through that route. But anyway, it was a good omen. And over the weekend and there was a plethora of announcements on all sorts of cooperation projects for the developing world, big participation by by business and industry, lots of cooperation between the global north and the global south. And then that sort of kept the mood still. But unfortunately, since then, it became clear that fossil fuel phase out versus fossil fuel phase down was going to be the big issue. And as it has been recent cops, but the mood was kind of became a little bit tense when the controversy over the cop president, a Sultan Al Jabbar criticizing Mary Robinson and being quite testy in his response to her questions about the science of 1.5 degrees. And then a big avalanche returned the following day. The story was in the Guardian and of scientists saying, look, he's at variance with the science and in effect, he kind of backtracked a little. He's, as you know, he's an engineer. He knows the science and he does happen to be chairman of the largest oil company in UAE, the state company adnock. So that added a little bit of a frisson to the whole controversy. But he has been saying repeatedly that that 1.5 degrees, in other words, keeping the global temperature rise to within 1.5 degrees is his North Star. And I prefer to focus on that really because I think that's the first time a major representative of a petrol state or a state actor that's big in oil and gas, saying that. In other words, it's in effect acknowledging the game is over, but it's a question of how you proceed from then. So I think that's where the big prize might be. It might not be the outcome that many would like, but I think there will be progress on that. So the next question is how is that going to be achieved and it's very clear early on that this is going to be done through the global stock taking. And this is a mechanism of the Paris agreement, which requires that all states within five years must identify their progress on decarbonization, but also on lots of other climate actions. And they have to be frank about it. They have to provide the data and then they have to respond to that. And then not only that collectively through the cop process, the whole conference of the parties under the Paris agreement must decide what's the best response from that. So the people who want the most progressive outcomes, they're saying to stay within 1.5, you have to have a phase out, and that this has to be the obvious conclusion of the global stock take. So that's where they're pushing for this outcome. Now today was interesting because the parties in effect have done all they can on the analysis and the data, and now they've handed it all over to the cop presidency to try and not political heads together in the coming days. And so there's a little bit of momentum on that. Obviously it will come down to language and it will come down to, you know, how the more reluctant parties obviously the petrol states respond to all of this. So that's where we are as of now. Thank you very much Kevin that's very comprehensive and be looking forward to seeing how things play out over the coming days are weak. And I'll turn to you, an example that pray please and you work in international climate governance and cooperation that I think you've been heavily involved in several cops in the past. You prepared the rulebook for cop 23 and cop 24 in Paris and we're a member of the Costa Rica delegation and currently you're with the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations in Paris so thank you very much for joining us. This is in fact, and this question that Kevin has just raised about the phase down the phase out of fossil fuels, the, the abatement, the mitigation and the abatement before the conference of course we had the UN stock date report and UN gap How are you seeing all this and maybe in terms of the countries that we replenishing their NBCs over the coming over the rest of the cop and over the coming years. Thank you very much. Yes, thank you very much for the invitation to speak and. Yes, so, as mentioned on my focus outside just to give context perhaps my focus outside of this, this, this cop at E3 is really on several things it's on linking climate and biodiversity together having high ambition outcomes on that so that's also a major issue that is being addressed well or not here. And also then the whole question of like net zero integrity like how do we, how do we get to the 1.5, like how do we keep temperature rise at 1.5. And that's, of course, as Kevin just described, that's why the I mean the IPCC is very clear that to get to keep that temperature, we need to phase out fossil fuels or I mean phase out meaning pretty much reducing to very minimal amounts of fossil fuels. And so yes, I guess. I think one of the things that I guess is something that can be celebrated at the moment in terms of the GST text so the global stock take negotiation text that is at the moment is that it really is the first time that after Glasgow in cop 26 and last year. I think that we have very ambitious language as an option in the text. So that explicitly calls for the phase out of all fossil fuels. And one of the options is just, I think it's like Justin, Justin rapid, the kind of, or sorry, I don't I don't have the text under my eyes but really calling out all fossil fuels, it that's the first time that this appears in the text so I think that's a really good thing. However, there are as right now as Kevin mentioned we are at the stage where the sort of more technical negotiators that are already so the GST is already in a sort of more political phase for the past six months that it took really all the sort of discussions on the technical findings that have been put together over the past two years the GST has been going on for two years. And so now since since June there have been discussions on how do we land that in a political package at cop 28. And so, as Kevin that was describing we're at the moment for that text, which actually was quite, like, pretty bloated it's like 24 pages with over 100 articles. And also all the issues that the GST covers, which is all the issues, like mitigation adaptation finance loss and damage way forward how do we cooperate going forward how does this address the NDCs. All that is over 100, like, over 100 small articles over 25 pages and this is being now given to the ministerial level and so work will still continue to be done on that at the technical level but normally at this point in time. And so the whole point in the cops is for the more technical negotiations to really at the end of the first week, bring a very clean text to the ministers, so that they have limited options to sort of do more political compromise on. And so the text we see now is not at that stage so that is one area of concern in a sense and in particular around that in particular, there's a concern around the process because this is a party driven process as you all know the, it's really the parties have to decide collectively but we have examples in the past such as in Copenhagen, when countries, a couple of powerful countries, try to make a deal behind closed doors. So there is, I have been hearing senior people talking about this risk at the And in particular, of course, this would be this is very related to the fossil fuel phase out piece because it if the countries that are in the room which might not even include the EU so that's like US and China UAE and others perhaps what kind of language are we getting out of that group. So, that's one risk and so it's really important to have like transparency, and to keep the process really party driven. And then I guess on the other hand of the fossil fuel phase out issue is like the coalition of like, well, at the moment it's not fully formed, but there are a number of ambitious country groups that have been calling for very strong texts so that's of course, a osis which is the Alliance of islands, and so they have been calling for that a lot. And that's my lack, which is Alliance of progressive countries in Latin America. Also, for instance, Columbia, that just joined the non proliferation relation fossil fuel non proliferation treaty, and that you which in its council conclusions does call for a phase out of like a full phase energy sector, and some clear safeguards around, say CCS the whole abatement issue for, especially the sort of industry sector. So, at the moment, those countries are still holding the line in the negotiations in the GC negotiations and we need the options that we can work with is phase out of all fossil fuels full stop. But, of course, they need to be working more together at the moment and building a strong coalition, because otherwise, it's, there is this risk that yeah that the decisions will be made about them and that the compromise text between us China, UAE, Saudi Arabia, etc, would not be that ambitious. So I would say just that and, and maybe I'll like, leave it at that at the moment that just maybe just the final point that I could make regarding some important issue. Also, here is, well, maybe just to final points on the GST, of course, to get this like ambitious package on a fossil fuel phase out. It is, of course, necessary to have balance. To address the sort of the issues that are really important to parties that yeah to different parties so that is for instance, really having a clear implementation package for developing countries so how do we transition out of fossil fuels that requires a lot of finance and there needs to be strong language around that both in the GST and in other texts. And also the whole question of adaptation which is of course, most important to developing countries and countries that are vulnerable to climate change and so at the moment adaptation has been a bit. I don't want to say ignored but that's always often the dynamics so that's happening and then the other thing just more generally inside and outside of the negotiations is this whole question of the role of nature. So, this, this question of nature has been put on the agenda by the COP presidency as one of their priorities. But in my perspective, a lot of the review is very much using nature as offsets. So, there are a lot of different pledges that have occurred over the past few years, different proposals, for instance from Brazil, and others to find new ways to scale up the very much needed finance for nature, nature of ecosystems in a way that is not using, that is not using carbon credits. I mean that is not using carbon credits as offsets for emissions. So there are different thoughts of how to do that but at the moment, they're also very sketchy deals and concerning the dynamics happening around that, for instance, the whole question that occurred before COP of a company called Blue Carbon, based in the UAE that is buying up basically huge amounts of land in Africa and African countries are sort of accepting to sell this precisely because in part there is no political deal that brings them money to preserve their ecosystems in a way that is not linked to fossil fuels. So that's just an issue I wanted to point out because of course COP 30 in two years, the next big moment is held in Brazil. And so this whole question of like ecosystems, nature, how do we bring that together will be very important going up to that and also in light of the Kuomint Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework that was adopted in China. So I'll leave it at that but happy to continue the discussion. Thank you. Thank you very much. You said a lot there. Thank you very much for that. And we'll come back to some of the points that you raised there. Could I next move to you, Dr. Marie, you're working in international development for more than 28 years it says, is COP 28 is a coincidence there. You're a director of the international development practice at the University of Galway. And as well as the question on our lips is about the loss of damage fund that just the one that Kevin has mentioned a little bit that the conference started off with such a such an interesting debate and originally conceived that Sharma shake and on the minister Ryan had a big role in putting that together. But the other one is the promise that developed countries would make to developing countries on 100 billion in climate finance by 2025. And can I ask you how things are going with either or both of those and what you take is on them. Thank you. Great. Can you hear me. Yeah. Great. And yeah, no, so I've been this is only my third cop. It's not my 28th. So, um, yeah, so I've been following quite a bit the climate mobility groups who talk about internal displacement and that's quite interesting because it's not all of them are from climate, but it's increasing in terms of climate. You know, some of them are from due to conflict and the connection between conflict and climate is growing. You know, where you can kind of make that connection where there's less resources, there's more tendency for conflict. But what's interesting about it is that most of the internal displacement is in just 10 countries. And you can probably kind of guess them, you know, but are coming coming from from very few countries as well. And patterns of displacements are interesting as well. You know, some in Africa, some of them are going south to South Africa. This is people who move after they've been displaced who don't stay in their in their own country where migrants or they move to Libya or some of them go towards Yemen and towards where we are now the Gulf which is is kind of a very attractive place for for migrants to go, but some of them are coming from conflict and related. We are talking a lot about having to move because internally displaced because of flooding and drought and in some countries it's both flooding and drought. And you know it's kind of interesting we can also think of the US where American retirees move to Florida because they want because of climate because they want more time in the sun. So people move anyhow because of because of the weather. But in terms of loss and damage then. And I think Kevin summarized it really well there. The climate mobility group are trying to ensure that displaced internally displaced people are able to get access to some funds going forward in loss of damage, but people were generally happy with the outcome of loss and damage and the pledge of the funds, including from Ireland and from some of the civil society groups, they're wondering what is next. And some I have to say are worried about the composition of the board and the secretaries of loss of the loss and damage fund at the World Bank, but that hasn't been decided yet. And we did in we have another masters in going on climate change and agriculture and food security and we did have someone from Irish aid talk to the class in advance of COP and we also had an advocate talk, you know, around the same time so we were aware of the kind of differences are the issues in advance. So some of the things that they're coming up with that the funds should there should be many streams to the funds and they and it hasn't been decided yet. This is to be decided by in the next eight months. And through the board of the World Bank, but the funds should have a rapid response mechanism and some of the funds should be kind of nationally decided or nationally owned and some people are saying there should be a sub national focus. But then some people are worried that the funds will get stuck at the national level. And they're, you know, they want a human rights based focus in the in the operationalization of the funds, and then that there's a space for displaced people and people who are on the move internally and that's quite important. And if they're moving because of conflict linked with the environment and climate, you know, they may not be able to access it through government channels, if you know what I mean. So, and they're worried about the eligibility criteria to the fund, but it seems positive. And I hear a lot about they've learned from the challenges of getting distribution of the green climate fund and the adaptation fund and how long that took to to register as an entity to get funds. And so going forward, I think they do want some funds for for displaced people and people who are on the move and people who are vulnerable and don't have a voice. And kind of my role here in COP, I'm working on social protection and people on the move social protection or policies, you know, like we have an Ireland, like when we when we had a shock like COVID. Our government was able to upscale or vertically increase the funds for social protection. So, we're doing an event with UNICEF World Bank and I'm doing an event with them and the Germans and the Red Cross and some ministers and it's kind of on how some of the loss and damage funds can be channeled through social protection mechanisms. And the reason for that would be that they, they're not projectised. Yeah, so it's hopefully it'll reach a lot of people at the one time, or a lot of people, you know, in the one area one geographical area and kind of issues around how if these systems if there's an infrastructure in place for getting those funds out through social protection systems, it's one of the channels that it might be able to get out to rural areas or to people who are displaced and it can help also social protection also as a role in prevention. And helping people before they're displaced so they don't have to sell their assets, you know, if they get some small cash. But the problem with social protection is that it's not everywhere. And it's growing in importance, but it's not all countries have that system, particularly fragile countries. So that's really what I'm hearing about loss and damage and the discussions going forward in terms of trying to keep displaced people also in the going forward part of the global stock take. And another areas that just transitions path pathway program I don't know if you if I can talk about that later if you want, but that's another kind of work program that was discussed today that I attended, but I'll go back to you for now and give someone else a chance. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you very much, Dr Murray thank you for for that sounds like a lot of activity ahead a lot of head of state building a lot of damage fund, and look with the rest of the discussions around that. Can we ask the participants remind the participants to please put any questions or observations into the Q&A function in the zoom here and anybody on Twitter or X the handle is asked by EA. Good morning. Now do you, Alex, Alex flight director general here of the Institute, the international Institute, that your affairs, senior council the Irish bar former government minister and TV and this counselor and broadcaster Alex is great to have you on the line as always. And I'd like to ask you if you could tell us a little bit about the ambience there in a cop there are 70,000 people there's a blue zone and a green zone and there's people from all over the world and arrived and everybody's furiously negotiating in parallel tracks of different topics and so on. Could you give us a flavor of all of that, please. You've actually described it very well there, Fergal, if somebody, if you arrived into this area, without any sense of what you were going to do in other words sort of just set you loose here be very hard. It's very, very hard to navigate or to choose things you can navigate because they give you a great you know their apps and there's various different guidance but you'd want to have a purpose here, because it's almost overwhelming in terms of the number of things that are happening obviously in the official negotiations are going on, but there's so much else going on people advancing their own agendas different meetings, NGOs, obviously faith groups, and commercial interests, which we've heard a lot about, not just in the oil sector but obviously in the oil sector is a big factor that people have but it's a huge area, it's a massive, it's hard for me to describe it, my limited part is a description, it's some distance outside the center of Dubai so most people who are staying in the city as I am come out by metro and unbelievably efficient clean you know 21st century public transport system that whisks you out there stops along along the way but it gets you out here. But my first cup this is my third one as well I represented Ireland at the Peru cup in and then again I was in Paris but at the one in 2013, 2014 in Lima, I mean no harm to the poor Peruvians but I mean it was just it ground to a halt at different stages because people couldn't move around the city of Lima. I remember myself being stuck in traffic trying to get back to speak at the conference. You know you were trying to get around it was a world of a difference to what we're seeing here today just in terms of the sense of organization. I mean there's no feeling of congestion I don't know if other people would agree with me and there's no everything moves you know you go into a really orderly queue you get in and out. I mean it's it's it's it's remarkable actually how well organized it is and in fact arguably somebody said to me earlier, rather to fill up the earlier solicitor well known sister he was saying you know actually arguably it's kind of nearly too big. In the sense that like, you know, it doesn't need to have this level of space and and I mean it's great to have it, but you just have this sense of an unbelievable and unbelievably well organized place. In terms of negotiations and what's happening. I mean, be one here it's this large building where a lot of negotiations going on parallel negotiations and different things. Yeah, you can I see own Louisa the question there. Can you go in and out of the meetings. Actually, you can. You know, there's a blue zone in the green zone we're in the blue zone. So you have to have a special pass for the blue zone. But there's a lot of people in the blue zone. And you can I wanted into article six negotiations earlier and this, you know, all of the parties set out around the room they've got the text upon screens, they're actually working on the text. Now, I mean, Alexander is right, you know, you don't, they have to prepare a clean text for the final minutes, you know, for the ministerial sessions for that sort of part. But you will see the text on the board will see people debating the meaning of words the meaning of phrases, how things should be worded how things should be landed in terms of text. You can actually see the negotiations and you can observe the negotiations happening, not as I said the inner sanctum of the ministerial ones, but you can see an awful lot so there is an openness in that sense. And it is, you know, it's interesting to wander in and out of those meetings to get a sense of what's happening. So that's my overall sense that yes, highly organized, you know, very secure, not much protest. And I did come in earlier, there was a necessarily called a certain wasn't a conflictual type protest but there were people and making a point on biodiversity, and they were chanting. And it was kind of great to hear because there are people, you know, there's a pulse and people are just not going along with everything and necessarily accepting everything that we told, but there's no, there's no feeling of mass of mass protests or demonstrations but there are a lot of really active and really strong NGOs here and you can see them and meet them. Thank you very much, Alex, who painted a very live picture for us there of the on the ground situation. And thank you all for the answers to the questions I put there, could it maybe circle around a little bit and go back again to Alexandra, the prayer please. So think up at this point about negotiations and the text of it everything has to be agreed unanimously so in other cops at Glasgow for example we saw political declarations coming outside agreements that that zero vehicles for example meet and pledges things like that. And then we saw some declarations and Sharon will shake we saw some criticism of the conclusion of the final text and then there was a review by the UN FCC secretariat for process changes this year. So, can I come back to you on that and maybe Kevin if you want to come in on it too. So what the product of the cop would be in terms of text in terms of declarations, and in terms of everybody having a collective buy into whatever that outcome is, maybe first Alexander the prayer then back to Kevin Solomon. Thank you. Yes, so thank you I think what you just said and then also what Alex mentioned really reminded me sort of a broader general points. So the, basically, at the moment of the Paris agreements, there were will all the, like major negotiations to come up with the Paris agreement and then there were a couple of years of really negotiating all the rules of the Paris agreement so those are really actual strong meaningful negotiations and so after that, there has been over the past few years like in the think tank community and others practitioners working on in this process. And a whole question of like, what is sort of the cop, the UNFCCC going through an existential like teenager crisis in a sense of growing up like after we've negotiated this agreement, we now all know that to reach the to reach the goals of the convention, there's a need for implementation on the ground. And so that's why over the past few years, the cops have sort of evolved from of course the negotiations remain central but that's also where you have seen all these the broader sort of action agenda everything that's happening. So I guess now we could call them like the non negotiated outcomes, all the pledges the declarations. And that was very visible as you said at COP26. And there has has also been a bit of a criticism of in the past few years but I think also this year of this sort of bloating up of pledges. And in fact, today someone was telling me that there's new research coming out that the more you pledge, like the more countries pledge. There's actually the less they do there is research showing that so I think that is a major concern. And over the past few years, and I think it's very pertinent to this COP, the whole question of what is the legitimacy of this process. I mean, if we cannot deliver it poses questions. There's always been questions of like, how does this process actually deliver as we see that the gaps between where we need to be and where we are continue to grow. I think all this is relevant because as I said before it's it's really historic moments that were in at the COP after 28 cops to really have text in textual proposals in in in the draft decisions that are being negotiated. And I think that the proposals of phasing out fossil fuels which is the clear central cause behind climate change. So I think, I mean, one can decry that it's taken 28 years and I would be the first one to do that but at the same time I think we are at this historic moment and it is, I am hearing very clearly that if we do not get that. I mean, this is, it has been hyped up as the expectation. It is essential that that come out as the outcome, I think. Yeah, there's question of, if, especially given that the global stock take as the sort of ambition mechanism of the Paris agreement is meant to inform the next round of nationally determined contributions that each country makes. So understanding the signal of phasing out fossil fuels this year is essential so that countries can also be pressured into putting that in their next plans. And so, I did a long trade on that and now I forgot your first initial initial questions so I will stop there. But happy to come back and apologies if, yeah, got sidetracked. Yeah, I think that's a really good summation of the whole different dynamic. I would add to that, that this year is different in many, many different ways which makes it interesting. And firstly, I think there's more substantial things on the table and even now that gives it a strong potential to have a good cop outcome and possibly even the best outcome since since Paris itself. And I think there's a helpful, ironically, there's a very helpful element in that and that is the chairmanship of the president current president of cop because I think he is razor like focus and it's well worth listening to his opening address. He set out very clearly bang bang bang what he wants. You know what what way he wants parties to to come to the negotiations in terms of coming to an understanding. There's a great clarity about it. Now you might question his motivation in terms of, you know what he ultimately wants himself in terms of fossil fuels, but I still think that dynamic is really strong. And, and even the fact that we are discussing tech so early in the process like this is almost a week to go. And it's very, very helpful. I think they, they will keep saying that we're going to end on time and push that that to, to all the parties if they have to go CH 12 the night for the five nights that that will happen. And so the other thing that's really clear here is that is that the global stock take will be the mechanism for that to happen. So that's where all the bets are at the moment, even though everything will be tied in as Alexandra's flag underneath that. And so that's the space to watch in terms of progress or not. Thank you very much, Kevin. Alex, if I could just come back to you about the negotiation negotiation coalitions because it does come down to the inner circle of senior governmental officials some particularly key players in that at the end of the day after the five nights that Kevin just spoke about. And there's a question in the chat about the development of the, of the coalitions like we have to G 77 we have the brick countries, we have the EU, you know the different blocks the same block and so on. Could you speak a little bit about how those dynamics work and how the, how the countries, how the positions develop so that we know we have when we actually have a meeting of minds and agreement. Yeah, I suppose you're right that you know there are different groups come together for the purposes of negotiation or they find themselves trust together if they've got the same agenda or the same the same outcome on a particular issue. So they make alliances. And as we see in any kind of negotiations, you know, you're sometimes you're, you find yourself in alliances with countries are with interest that you didn't necessarily foresee that would that that would occur, but because you've got a particular priority, you're pushing for that priority, you'll take help and support and wherever you get it. And it is like negotiation is as everybody on this call will know only too well very complex and unpredictable sometimes process. And I mean, I think Alexander described it really, really well, but you know that you want to try to clear you want to try to do as much of the negotiation as we're out of the room. But before you get there, again, like any negotiations at home, people will be familiar with, you know, pay negotiations or any negotiations to form governments, which I was involved in myself at one point, you know, where you want to get as much of the I hate these phrases heavy lifting but you know, get as much of the stuff that can be agreed done and dusted and that can sometimes take days and days and then it just comes to the final call. A net call has to be made on something and a minister may decide or group of ministers may decide but look, we're not 100% happy with this particular likely outcome, but we've got most of what we wanted. We've got this, you know, tick the box we've got that we've got most of the other look I think we're moving towards an agreement and that's the way you've seen with previous cops were right up to the last minute, people have held out on particular issues. But then, perhaps, I mean, and again, Kevin the others will maybe have a view on this, perhaps because they've got enough to go home with, as it were, or enough to make progress with as they would see that they're prepared then to maybe throw in the towel on a particular issue that they were holding out on. And I mean, from Ireland's point of view, I think it's important to remember an aim and Ryan was making this point. When it really came up that I think there was discussion about him having to go maybe having to go home to Dublin but it didn't in the end, but he was just making it at the point that you know he's part of a team of EU ministers and that's as I recall it from Lima and parts that is the way that the EU of course will negotiate as a block as a group. Your influence on that as an Irish minister is within the EU room. And that's where, you know, a lot of the stuff is trashed out in there and priorities of individual countries within the day of individual member states will have to be sifted through and negotiated and navigated in the EU in the EU room as I can call it that before then hopefully the EU has a common position in the broader negotiations. So that's certainly my recollection of how things happen at those sort of closing stages. Alex, there's one question in chat box from Francis Jacobs is asking you to predict the final issues. I think we've had a chat about some of those, some of the questions that are on the fossil fuel. Is the issue of the show or really is it? Well, I passed that over to the others as to their prediction, but they're probably in a better position, but I will just say that I think it was one or other, you know, this point about negotiations, one other thing about words, you know, individual words can sometimes take a note a lot of work. So abatement has come in. So what does abatement mean? You know, what is abated? What's non abated? So we think we understand what these words mean in English language. We use them more occasionally. But then what do they mean in the context of fossils? You know, unabated, completely unabated, partly unabated, you know, and these, I know this can sound a bit tedious to people, oh God, are they seriously pouring over just one word? Well, yes, is the answer to that, because that's what's necessary to get, because there's no point in agreeing to something that there's three different views as to what it means. So you've got, and we see that, of course, how agreements fall apart. People made an agreement, but then they have a different view afterwards as to what they meant when they had that agreement. So you want to try to, as Alexander said, get clarity in an agreement and a common view as to what the agreement means. If I come in there, yes, just to say that if any form of phase out appears in the text, that would be truly remarkable. And as Al Gore says, would be a really beneficial thing for humanity across the planet. So that's the high point. But the risk is that from every hour on, there will be chipping away at the impact of that. And that's what I fear. And I've been duped before in the sense that I thought we were getting good outcomes, particularly in Glasgow, and it was just falling the way it was excised from the text. And much as this may about a great many people. So that's the big risk at this point. But if I was to weigh it up, I think there will be some strong reference to fossil fuels in the final decision. And I think the GST, the global stock take will be a good momentum driver because if they've put so much stock into that word into this, it's two years of really hard work with every country participating. And then for people to be pulling out would be very bad for an old series level, and particularly for the reputation as well. So I still think the global stock take will deliver results. Thank you, Kevin. Dr. Murray, could I go back to you here? This question of phasing out and phasing down the fossil fuels of Bateman. Is a Bateman an excuse or do you need to actually phase out the fossil fuels? I think it offered a little bit earlier to have a short update for us on the Just Transition, the Hatred Partnerships. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah, no, that's great. I attended the debate on the work programme on Just Transition today, which had both formal and informal sessions. It had been a suspended meeting. And they had agreed on the first part of the text. Just Transition is that, you know, the concept is that I'm thinking in Ireland, you know, people who worked in turf and that they would have some sort of skills training or chances to do something else. That's kind of a very, very cursory summary. But yeah, and it goes back to your question about the groupings. They had agreed the text, but the scope of the work programme on Just Transitions was a very long list and had everything in there. And, you know, that it covers human rights, it covers gender, it covers funding mechanisms, adaptation. So that was where the debate was where there was a number of options put forward on what should be included in that list or whether that list should be consolidated or whether the list should be just, you know, one line or whatever. And text really matters. And everybody is trying to make sure that something that they are really want to maybe ensure funding comes to because with text comes funding. I think, you know, that if it's mentioned in the text, it means that you can have programmes afterwards. So people are really trying to push that their favourite issue that they're at the cop to to work on and go from it. And they just want to keep certain things in the text. So that's, that's, that's why the words matter so much, whether it's in there or not. And there was a lot of internal concessions. The group, the G77 and China seemed to agree. And South Africa was part of the G77. And I think about five options came were put forward. And in the end, a decision wasn't made. And they were told to, they were kind of going to be sent to the chair was going to send them to the secretaries or the president. And then they'd work on kind of some sort of compromise text that would have to be negotiated again. So really, text does matter for for those reasons. And what's in and what's not in in the text is, you know, whether indigenous populations are included, whether displacements included, you know, all these sort of things do matter. But then the issue is that you just can't put everything into everything because it becomes a little bit meaningless. So, and, you know, institutional management of the scope becomes more difficult. So yeah, that was, that was quite interesting today. And sorry, the just transition comes out of a decision from Cheryl shake. And it's kind of been conceptualized I suppose by the International Labour Organization, so that workers and employers organization and the government all have a stake in in how this concept or this program work program moves ahead. Back to you. Thank you very much, Dr Murray. So, look, I'm looking at the time, I wanted to just come back to Alexander the prayer for one remark on the statement question, if you wouldn't mind the notice is getting dark where you are to Mr pray. And at the end of that, I was just going to do one more round to ask each of you what you're doing for the next two or three days. I hope the priorities are and how much you see happening over the next number of days and then maybe we'll hear from you again when the whole cop is over. So if I could do it in that order, please, Alexander the prayer on abatement and the next few days for you and then Alex, Kevin and ending with you Dr Murray, thank you. Sorry, is it the next few days for me or for the coffee general next to the next few days for you if you have something to tell us about the abatement first, and then what what your next few days look like. Fantastic. Yes. Well, first, thanks so much. This is a really interesting discussion, for instance, I don't follow at all being the just transition and loss and damage so it's interesting to get updates as well from others. So, I would say yes, on this question of abatement as Kevin or Alex I can't remember at this point we're saying earlier, the words really really matter. And there is this concern, major concern that I mean, even even between phase down and phase out like phase down just I have experts that have just told me this morning for them phase out means it's it's synonymous of peaking. So it can just mean reducing fossil fuels by 1%. So phase down is really problematic as a language, especially if we put that for the long term. And then phase out. There's been a lot of debate around this but in the views of these experts I spoke about it. It really means like reducing really to like minimal less than 10% of, or even less. And so that's when also for this question of abated on abated comes in because basically, if you add the on abated. After at the moment the IPCC does not have a breed upon definition of what exactly abatement means. So, if that word of abatement. So if we if we get in the text for instance, phase out of on abated fossil fuels. And there is no definition in the league in this cop decision on what an abated fossil fuel means, then that leaves the door open to major loopholes of. I mean, it really is doesn't mean anything so that is really an outcome that a lot of the ambitious countries want to need to avoid and I think are working very hard to avoid. And I mean, they were saying it's a big problem because this is a legal text like the Paris agreement is a legal text. And so the issue is that if out of here, fossil fuel companies use this language to basically not change then that is a real problem. And that's maybe on that issue so I would say that, and then maybe to go to what I'm doing these next few days. So, I've been working on precisely drafting proposed text regarding abatement like if it does land, how can we define it so how can we be asking the IPCC to define it but that brings up a lot of different problems and and dangerous because what kind of scientists would be on that panel from different countries including Saudi Arabia, etc. So we might not get an ambitious definition out of that. But working on that and on the question of what safeguards do we put around that or what alternative forms of language can we find that could be a compromise. But that does not have this term on abated and then more generally the other work I'm doing at the moment is really working on this question of the IPCC seventh assessment report is starting that cycle is just starting off so their papers will come out for the next GST. And so at the moment in January countries are going to meet again to to basically scope out what are the priorities of this next cycle. And so I've been trying here to meet with scientists meet with delegates to really emphasize the importance of mainstream the question of biodiversity and really accounting also for this big issue of risks around carbon dioxide removal which we didn't talk about here but is, yeah. Anyway, so that's that's my plan for the next few days. And yeah, thank you. Alex Kevin, Dr Murray. And I was just listening to Alexander and Alexandra and also what others have said about this phrase phase phase down. I mean, it's actually, I think a bit of an absurdity of afraid those two words together phase down. I mean, Kevin is a wordsmith far more than I but it's not I've never heard down used as a word to limit the notion of a thing you know to phase something down. And what does it even mean it certainly is, if it's used instead of phase out. It clearly, it clearly indicates that it's not going to get to complete removal. I mean, that's what it must mean in terms of the English language phase down as distinct from phase out must mean it's not going to be phased out. Perhaps ever. That phrase so that's a very unfortunate phrase. I just say that from the point of view from just my own sense of it. And let's hope the stronger language that Kevin has been talking about does does does come through. I just mentioned also Fargo that we some great questions in on on the on the Q&A, and I'd love to be able to answer Keane Donahy's question about the article six negotiations. I did meet somebody just before we started this call, who had been at those articles six negotiations, who said that he thought there was a lot of progress made but that he felt now I don't want to misrepresent what he said to me but I understood from what he said that they'd essentially come to an end and that was pushed back to next week. That's Alexander's nodding so that seems to be the case. And that there was some countries perhaps including the US were a little unhappy with where that had reached the point that that had reached. So that's the best I can do to that very interesting and clear question from Keane Donahy there. And just Francis Jacobs, Al Gore, Kamala Harris, I know John Kerry is obviously here as well. So he's a very senior and experienced representative of the US. And Dan O'Brien had a great question there as well just really will be to Alexander about this thing about big pledging. You know this thing about big pledging countries do more backsliding and Dan was wondering are different regions of the world more guilty of that than others. And he's wondering about energy producers are they more and just some interesting questions. And in my next couple of days, tomorrow is a down day here at a cop. And I'm going to be here until the end of the week and try and absorb as much as I can, you know, try to attend as many meetings and presentations as I can. And, you know, all sorts of speakers here, as I said, a bit overwhelming to try and find out, you know, where to be your formal, you know, fear of missing out. That that's a real problem here at cop because you just missed the very thing that you want to see or somebody tells you, oh, I just was out of brilliant briefing and then you. So anyway, try to navigate that to try to absorb as much as possible. And also the Institute for as you know, as our co chair of our climate and energy group, we're going to try and get into a huddle again on Friday, just to review what's happened and see what role the IEA can have in continuing this dialogue. And amongst our members, both policymaker members and corporate members and to play a role, whether limited that might be but we think it's not that limited we think we've got a lot to offer in terms of bringing together different elements of Ireland and being in a position to interact with people internationally as well on these on these questions. So that's me for the next couple of days. Visit is Alex Kevin Solomon. Well, I'll be following whole series of part of the process. And when someone been moving faster than others, I suppose you could divide them into two in terms of the international process. The Irish elements, and then I suppose the EU is the interlink between two. So, I mean, Ryan will be here to the bitter end. And I would say he will be increasingly involved in, you know, trashing out trashing out that detail on on, you know, what the GST progress might mean. And right down to the abatement issue, which I think was fascinating. And I think it's really important that there's no get out of jail part for fossil fuel companies. And so then the international process that the various iterations of the text will emerge. There will be fewer times of the day after long nights or late evenings. And then there'll be a lot of wrestling over that. You're very interested to see how the global stock take is assumed into the overall document and what prominence it has already discussing that. And one really good thing is that access to documentation is vastly improved since I started my first cup in 2017 and bond. So you actually see you can get the text and you can see, you know, you bump into negotiators who will actually fill you in on what's going on rather than hoping it might, you know, happen on someone that's a friendly face. So you do get that flow, which is much better. And that's really good for the whole process and particularly by the political side of it. So I'll have to piece together a lot of that. But maybe Jane on a positive note. I think that if there's a good outcome, history will look back and it affects a lot Alex was saying about, you know, what preparation work in advance. I think it'd be very clear that things like the Bridgetown initiative by Mia Motley in terms of global financial overhaul will have been a huge catalyst. I think there's some really meaningful outcomes on G7 and G20 this year the African climate so much again help build momentum. And then in more recent times when the loss and damage structure was was agreed that I give it even more momentum. And then the US China. I think the economy of friendship, particularly through John Kerry and his counterpart Xi Jinping was really helpful again, and even if you follow those two around over the next few days and be quite revealing. So hopefully they'll do the business. Okay, and I'll just go very quickly. Yeah, very quickly because I think you're finishing now. Yeah, I'm going to follow parlor process and processes including the global stock take. And I have to say it's a great place for networking, getting ideas for research and, you know, meeting old colleagues like you talked about the Convention on Biological Diversity. The director was known from a long time ago, and he's walking around you can meet him and have a chat and people are as Kevin said people are very generous. You can just talk really to anyone I wish people are good at talking we can just, you know, start conversations but people tell you a lot of things as you, no matter who you're sitting besides you can just chat and say well, you know what's happening what's your perspective on it and I think that's really fantastic. And I think our Minister of Agriculture is coming later in the week so probably to follow what what they're what's happening there. And yeah, and also I'm moderating events so there's an awful lot of preparation for that. And, you know, hopefully that will go well on Saturday. So once that's done I'll be probably taking some photographs as well. But the building here are quite amazing actually and it's, it's kind of I've never been to Dubai before it's unbelievable. What was built in the desert. It's quite strange to be honest, but yeah, over back to you I think we're we're nearly on time yet. We're almost on time and thank you very much Kevin O'Sullivan the Irish time. And Alexandra to pray for the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations. Murray of University College Galway and Alex quite up the air and thank you all very much for your time and answering all the questions out of the discussion. Thank you very much.