 Good morning and welcome to the International Conference on Fossil Fuel Supply and Climate Policy. We are very, very pleased to welcome you all here to introduce ourselves. I'm Elisa Arendt and this is Miquel Muñoz-Cabre. We are co-chairs together of this year's conference. In this world that we've been living through the last couple of years of COVID, it is, we're very aware of what an immense privilege it is to be able to meet together in person. At the same time, we're aware climate policy is more urgent than ever with the impacts of climate change increasingly visible and acknowledged. But geopolitics also continue to shape in new ways the dramatic and challenging landscape for phasing out fossil fuels, placing new pressures in the opposite direction, and also new geographies have come to the fore. Equity issues are as pressing as ever, or more than ever, as the pandemic has exposed so many of the deep global and international inequalities, showing us the central importance of justice in planning for the energy transition, in mitigating its costs, as much as distributing its benefits. This is the third conference after the 2016 and 2018 conferences held here in Oxford, followed by a virtual gathering we had in 2020. SEI, the Stockholm Environment Institute, is an international organization that bridges science and policy with the aim of fostering more sustainable development pathways. We conduct research, inform policy, support and help build civil society capacity, all with a foundation in scientific research. We have offices in Stockholm, Bogota, Boston, Tallinn, Bangkok, Seattle, Davis, Nairobi, York, and here in Oxford. One of our flagship publications, which was actually inspired at an earlier version of this conference, is the production gap report, which we've published since 2019. I think we have a couple hard copies here for anyone who wants to take one with you. This has been published together with key partners, many of whom are here at this conference. We're very pleased to announce there will be a PGR 2023. More information from colleagues can be shared. You will meet a number of our other SEI colleagues from our different offices who are either chairing or presenting at different sessions throughout these two days, on topics from just transitions from oil, gas and coal, to health impacts of fossil fuel extraction, to diversification of national oil and gas companies, among others. If any of my SEI colleagues that are in the room could raise your hand, we just get a sense. We've got a few continents covered, I think, here. So thank you all for joining. I'll pass the word now on to my colleague, Mikal. Thank you, Lisa. Hello, everyone. It's so great to see all of you. We are very grateful to our steering committee, who have been vital in shaping this conference and in reviewing the many, many, many, many, many abstract received. So thank you for that. Also to the Queen's College for hosting us again. It's a great place to be. And our sponsors, KR Foundation, are you in the room? They're coming later. So thank you, and to SIDA as well, the Swedish Development Agency. We're grateful to our partners. We have done all this work with us on fossil fuels. And most importantly, we're grateful to all of you for coming here. So thank you. And without further ado, let's have the fun begin. Mikal, you have the floor. Fine. I think there was one acknowledgement left out there, and that was to Mikal and Lisa, who have done an amazing job of bringing us together in this challenging moment. So I just want to say a huge thanks, because I don't have to do it anymore. And it's a shout out to my old partner in crime and this Haro van Asselt, who would have loved to be with you. I spoke with him on Friday, since his regards. And when we launched this back in 2016, we had no idea what sort of impact this community would have. And so much has changed since six years ago when we had this first fossil fuel supply and climate policy conference. The energy transition now has a sense of inevitability and momentum that really wasn't there in 2016. The topics that you all work on, and we talk about stranded assets, carbon lock-in, just inequitable transitions, they were niche topics now they're mainstream. And we have this vibrant community of researchers, this packed crowd that we have here today, researchers, activists, investors, and now even government officials calling for a managed decline of fossil fuel production. This is really rather remarkable and owes a lot of thanks to the people in this room, so really a lot of gratitude here for you and all you've done. Look around, the networks, the alliances that have been created, these tools, trackers that launched just this last week and multiple others. And Shane was plugged for the Production Gap Report. Again, that got its inspiration. And if you're interested in knowing more about the next iteration of Production Gap Report, seek out ploy at your close in the audience, as myself as well. But as you know, we're still dealing with a lot of the same challenges that we were then. And in many cases, in new forms. How to ensure that a transition can really, truly be workable and just and equitable? How can we hear from and support and amplify the voices of indigenous communities and those local communities that feel the greatest effects of fossil fuel production? And then how to ensure that this current energy crisis that we're in doesn't undermine the prospects for this transition and rather, we seize the opportunity to accelerate it. So with that, it's a great honor and privilege for me to introduce three leading lights on those three questions that tee up a number of themes for the conferences to come. So first up, Christophe McGlade. So Christophe, head on up there. And if there's one thing that hasn't changed since 2016, it's Christophe being central to seminal analysis that has really changed thoughts and ideas back then in 2016. He and Paul Eakins, who is here, had recently published their nature paper on the geographical distribution of unburnable carbon that really popularized the notion that many others had already put out there, but on an academic basis that a majority of fossil fuels need to stay in the ground. And kind of which ones were the least likely to be developed? And then now Christophe is head of the energy supply unit at the International Energy Agency, where he leaves the analysis behind the World Energy Outlook and was lead author of that net zero by 2050 report that came out in 2021 that had that important finding that under a 1.5 degree world, no new gas or oil fields would be required or no new coal mines. And it's certainly something that we've seen had a profound effect. So it's with great pleasure that I turn it over to Christophe. Thank you very much, Michael. It's a real pleasure to be here. And actually, as Michael mentioned six years ago when I was here, it was Michael himself who asked a very pertinent question during that conference. And that question was, what level of fossil fuel prices are best if we want to accelerate energy transitions? And this is a question which we at the IA have been thinking about for all of the years since then. And of course, it's extremely relevant today because given the global energy crisis, we are seeing very high fossil fuel prices and this has risks and perils for the energy transition. We need to acknowledge today that we are in the first ever global energy crisis. It's different from what happened in the 1970s, which mainly affected oil. And this is going to have impact for many years to come. But if you want to understand the risks and the perils that there are for the energy transition, we first of all need to understand what caused the crisis that we see today. Because the tightness that we see in fossil fuel markets predates Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Earlier on in 2021, we had the rapid economic recovery from the pandemic. We had the impact of a number of different weather events, whether that was low hydro generation in Brazil, whether it was low wind generation in Europe. There's been planned and unplanned outages to supply, both low emission supply and natural gas generation. And also very importantly, we haven't been investing enough into energy. We haven't been investing enough into clean energy forms and we haven't been investing enough into fossil fuel if we don't have that investment into clean energy. And I'll come back onto that very shortly. But of course, Russia's invasion of Ukraine sharply exacerbated the tightness that we see in markets. And some people have tried to portray the crisis that we see today as a result of climate policies. We need to be very, very clear. This is incorrect. The more rapid deployment of clean energy, of efficiency measures would have helped to protect consumers and avoid some of the upward pressure that we see in fossil fuel prices. Whenever people misleadingly blame the crisis on climate policies and on clean energy, they're distracting from the real culprit, which is Russia's invasion of Ukraine. A more sustainable recovery from the pandemic and a faster ramp up in clean energy would also have helped to avoid the increase that we're seeing in CO2 emissions. 2020 saw the largest ever decrease in CO2 emissions in a single year. But in 2021, we've seen the largest ever increase in emissions in a single year. And in fact, that increase in 2021 was larger than the drop in 2020. And so emissions are at the highest ever level. And it's likely that emissions will continue to rise this year. Clearly, this isn't good news. And actually that increase that we saw in 2021 continues the trajectory there has been for the past 20 years, whenever global CO2 emissions have been rising substantially. And we shouldn't lose sight of where we are heading and where we need to head when talking about climate change. Before the Paris Agreement, our outlook for emissions was very clear. We saw a continued rise in fossil fuel use and in CO2 emissions. And this would have led to a catastrophic level of warming, around about three and a half degrees by the end of the century. But now it's a very different picture for emissions. In our state of policy scenario, which just takes on board those policies that governments have put in place. As a result of those policies, as a result of the technology changes over the years since the Paris Agreement, we see a very different picture for emissions. Emissions would peak in the next few years and then very slowly decline. And when we look out in terms of the temperature rise, this would lead to around about two and a half degrees by the end of the century. So just in the past seven years, we've shaved around about one degree off that long-term temperature increase. However, of course, two and 2.5 degrees is still far too high and it would still lead to massive climate damages around the world. But there are also the net zero pledges that governments have been announcing. And this really does change the picture for emissions. If we take on board all of those net zero pledges that governments have announced, whether that's Europe in 2050, United States in 2050, China in 2060 and so on and so forth, if you add all of those together in our estimates, this would lead to a temperature rise of around about 1.8 degrees by the end of the century. And this is very significant because it's the first time that governments have put in place or announced policies of sufficient ambition that we could limit the temperature rise to below two degrees. But there's two very important bits of context here. First of all, it can't be taken for granted that governments will bring about the policies that are needed to underpin those net zero pledges. And in fact, as we see here, those pledges haven't yet been backed up by the policies that are needed to bring them about. And secondly, even if all of those pledges do get realized, it doesn't put us on track for 1.5 degrees. We're still a long way off 1.5 degrees and a number of things need to happen if we want to realize that, first of all, it's going to require governments to significantly increase their ambition and significantly increase their explicit climate policies. And we also can't let that long-term date, if we want to limit temperature rise to one and a half degrees, roughly speaking, we need to be at net zero emissions by 2050. But we can't let a time in 28 years from now distract from the changes that are needed today and are needed over this decade. Unfortunately, many of the technologies that are needed to bring about a near-term peak and reduction in emissions, they get on track for 1.5 degrees, are available and many of them are cost-effective. Just to give some examples, wind and solar PV have grown incredibly rapidly over the past decade. Annual capacity installations quadrupled between 2010 and 2020 and they need to quadruple again if we want to be on track for net zero. We need around about 1,000 gigawatts of wind and solar to be installed around the world in 2030. And we have been making good progress on this. Our latest estimates are that in the year 2022, so whenever we get to the end of this year, we'll have installed around about 340 gigawatts of wind and solar. We also need to see a huge increase in electric car sales. Indeed, by the year 2035, nowhere in the world is there an internal combustion engine car sold. And by 2030, 60% of the cars that are sold would need to be electric. And again, there has been good progress on this front. 2022, we estimate around about 15% of the cars sold. One in eight cars sold will be electric. But also boosting energy efficiency is key. And here, unfortunately, progress has not been so good in recent years. Over the decade in the 2010s, we improved the emissions intensity, the energy intensity of the global economy by around about 2% every year. That needs to go up to around about 4% improvement every single year. But unfortunately, since the pandemic, we've actually been getting worse. So the increases in 2021, for example, was only around about 1%. And there's a whole host of different milestones that are needed. I could go through all of these in a lot of detail if time would allow on what needs to happen by when if we ought to be on track for net zero emissions. But one of the important headlines that was mentioned by Michael and which generated a lot of attention at the time we released our report was on what does net zero mean for fossil fuels? Because we indicated that if we see a boost in clean energy investment, if we start to achieve many of these milestones on the power sector, on electric cars, on efficiency, on the industry sector, if we achieve all of those things, the declines in fossil fuel production would be sufficiently rapid that it's able, we're able to meet those declines without investment into new sources of fossil fuels. We wouldn't require any new oil and gas fields. We wouldn't require any new coal mines or coal mine extensions. And then, of course, we wouldn't require any exploration for new fossil fuels. But it's helpful here to provide a few additional words of context as to what this statement on no investment into new fossil fuels means. Because one of the things that got lost in that discussion is that there is still some investment into fossil fuels. We don't have investment dropping to zero in the next couple of years because if we cut off all investment into fossil fuels, the declines in supply would be faster than the declines that we see in fossil fuel demand. And secondly, whenever we published the net zero roadmap back in May last year, we assumed that there would be a sustainable recovery from the pandemic. The governments were put in place lots of measures to help boost jobs, to help boost the economy and do that in a way that would boost clean energy deployment. We also assumed that they would bring about very, very ambitious climate policies from the beginning of 2022. This policy surge clearly hasn't happened and Russia's invasion of Ukraine adds an additional dimension to this picture. There's a good possibility that Russia's invasion will lead to a prolonged reduction and potentially a substantial reduction in fossil fuel production coming from Russia. And any immediate shortfalls that we see in production from Russia will need to be realized or compensated elsewhere, even in a world that's moving towards net zero emissions by 2050. The most suitable option to do this are those with short payback periods, which don't have long lead times. And this includes things like tight oil and shale gas in the United States, extending production from existing sources from existing fields and clamping down on flaring and venting and making use of that natural gas. But just to be very clear here, nobody should imagine that Russia's invasion of Ukraine can justify a new large-scale and long-lived investment into new fossil fuel infrastructure in a world that wants to limit the temperature rise to 1.5. And the reason for this is because of the long lead times that there are for many conventional projects. There's a lot of different stages that conventional oil and gas projects go through from the issuing of an exploration license to potential discovery of that deposit, to the development of that, and then to first production. And when we look at what's happened for projects that have been developed over the past few years, we see that from the beginning of that process, from the issuing of a license to first production, it's taken around about 20 years on average. Some projects are, of course, a bit faster than that. Some are much slower. But what this means is that any new projects that are approved for development are unlikely to make an immediate, meaningful contribution to the fossil fuel balance anytime soon. And any resources that haven't yet been discovered, or those that don't have any existing above-ground infrastructure, are unlikely to make any sort of contribution to alleviating the current energy crisis. The key thing to help alleviate the impacts of the energy crisis is to see a huge boost in clean energy, to see a huge boost in energy efficiency. But this is where there are some caveats on the finding on fossil fuel investments. Because we need to recognise that the primary thing that needs to happen, if we are to limit the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, is that huge boost in clean energy investment. When we look at numbers here, there has been some increases in clean energy investment in the years since the Paris Agreement. But taking numbers for 2022, we have just over a trillion dollars that was invested into clean energy. We need that number to quadruple. We need it to be over four trillion dollars of investment into clean energy technologies by 2030 to be on track for 1.5. Less fossil fuel investment is required, of course, but the differences that we see in fossil fuel investment are not nearly as large as the big gap that we see there in clean energy investment. And indeed, reducing fossil fuel investment in advance of, or instead of that scale-up in clean energy, wouldn't lead to the same outcomes as the net zero scenario. It wouldn't lead necessarily to 1.5 degrees. One of the things that we would very likely see is a huge increase in fossil fuel prices. But we also need to recognize if actions aren't taken on clean energy investment, then there's going to be an increasing gap between supply and demand. Whenever we do future updates of the net zero scenario, we might see a gap that emerges between declines in supply and rising demand for fossil fuels. And it's going to be increasingly difficult to bridge that gap without any investment into new fossil fuels. But as I say, the key thing that we need to see is that huge boost in clean energy. But another challenge that exists here is that the gap in clean energy investment is most apparent in emerging and developing economies. And this points to new dividing lines that are emerging in energy and climate with developing economies potentially being left behind. I mentioned there's been a slight increase in global investment into clean energy in recent years, but this has mainly been concentrated in advanced economies and in China. In other emerging and developing economies, investment levels remain stuck around about 2015 levels, even though there have been some bright spots such as solar investment in India. And this isn't just about emission reductions. In our net zero scenario, not only do we achieve net zero by 2050, we also achieve universal energy access by 2030, in line with the UN goals. And unless we see an increase in investment in clean energy, in emerging and developing economies, we also will fail to meet those goals on energy access. But I want to come back to that question that I posed at the start. And what do fossil fuel prices, what fossil fuel prices, can help or hinder the process of change? The current crisis provides us with a number of indications as to what high fossil fuel prices might mean for the energy transition. First of all, on economics. Prices increases in fossil fuels clearly improves the economic attractiveness of cleaner alternatives, including things like efficiency. In some ways, this is a bit similar to introducing a CO2 price. If we look at the increases in natural gas prices in Europe since the beginning of this year, that's equivalent to adding a $300 per tonne CO2 price. But there are, of course, a number of differences between an increase in fossil fuel prices and increases in CO2 prices. Because fuel prices don't reflect the carbon content of the different fuels. And we have seen that they've been incentivizing shifts away from natural gas to coal, for example. A number of countries have delayed the planned closure of coal-fired power plants. And we're seeing renewed investment into coal production in China and in India. On the political economy of transitions, countries can see high prices as a spur towards accelerating transitions. We've seen ambitious announcements from the EU with regards to the repower EU strategy in the United States with the Inflation Reduction Act. And these are great measures to help boost that level of clean energy investment. I mentioned also at the start the 1970s oil crises and we can also draw some lessons from there because this led to a huge boost in innovation, particularly in energy efficiency. But high fossil fuel prices also create the risk that affordability and security jumps to the top of the agenda of policymakers. And it can divert or distract attention from the need to reduce emissions. In addition, importing countries, if they are paying higher fossil fuel prices, won't necessarily be able to spend quite so much on clean energy. If they're sending that money abroad, they won't necessarily have the same amount to invest domestically on clean energy. It squeezes the funds that are available to them. And finally, high fossil fuel prices hit the poorest, hardest and risk draining support for the process of change. They also lead to price interventions. We have, again, seen a number of countries introducing new fossil fuel subsidies as a result of the increase in prices. Those fossil fuel subsidies are rarely designed well in practice and they often don't target those who most need the help. And this underscores the need for climate policies to help poorer households, including with the higher upfront costs that exist for many clean energy technologies today. Without that support, there's a risk that climate policies will become socially divisive, particularly in a time of high fossil fuel prices. If the rich households can protect themselves from the impacts of high fossil fuel prices and can shift onto alternatives but poorer households can't, there is a risk of some divergence and division. And when we put all of this together, in our view, high fossil fuel prices shouldn't be seen as desirable from an emissions reduction perspective. There are pros, there are cons, but on balance we view it as negative towards the process of change. And in particular, high fossil fuel prices shouldn't be seen as a substitute for strong and robust climate policies. So just a few concluding thoughts on what I've been discussing. If we want to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees, we need to see a huge boost in clean energy investment. If that happens, then, as we set out in our net zero scenario, we will have declines in fossil fuel demand that can be met without investment into new sources of fossil fuels. Any new investments that are made risk locking in fossil fuel use and passing on an even larger environmental challenge to future generations. But we need to take some care when talking about scaling down investment into fossil fuel supply. We're not on track for that boost in clean energy investment and cutting back on supply in advance or instead of scaling up investment in demand, risks driving up prices and making the transition more expensive, more volatile and less equitable. Nevertheless, today's crisis does remind us of the unsustainability of the current system and the urgency that there is for us to change. The world doesn't need to choose between tackling the energy crisis and the climate crisis. There are measures, there are policies that can be put in place to tackle both simultaneously. And that's what we need to see happening. We need to make sure that this is a historic turning point towards a cleaner, more affordable and more secure energy world. Thank you very much. We're going to hold off on questions till the end of the speakers here. So thanks so much, Christoph, for really sort of threading the needle on this careful pathway to net zero and 1.5 that in all the considerations we need to keep in mind for that. So now it is my pleasure to introduce to you Jesse Burton who has participated in all the conferences to date. She's a leading light in the discussions around just transition. She's a senior researcher at the Energy Systems Research Group at the University of Cape Town. She's also a senior associate at E3G. She's on the steering committee for this conference. So thank you for that. You know, she's a recognized voice on an advisor on coal transitions in particular in South Africa as well as around the world. And so she's going to give us some insights today on how we can navigate this question of just transitions with at sort of a finer scale from the perspective of the global South. So thanks so much for joining us, Jesse. Thank you, Michael. Thank you, Christoph. It's wonderful to be here in person. This is my first in-person event since 2019. It's very, very, I'm very, very excited and I'm really interested and amazed. There's been many years. We've all been apart and it's exciting that we're going to come back together now and I'm going to hear from experts in the field and people who are working on this in all sorts of countries about the challenges that they're facing around fossil fuels and climate change. And it's going to be a really, really interesting first few days. Many of you will be familiar with the South African context. So I don't want to talk too much about the detail of it, but I'll explain briefly some of the dynamics in the country and then go on to some of the emerging lessons that we're seeing around especially just transition in a developing country, a coal intensive developing country. Like almost all countries in the world, South Africa is highly fossil fuel dependent, but especially very coal dependent. So coal accounts for 87% of our electricity, 20% of our liquid fuels, which is converted from coal. And it's a key input into industry, into exports and households who use it for cooking and heating still, 100,000 households in the country. From mining all the way to end uses coal accounts for 200,000 jobs and almost all of those are very heavily concentrated in one province in Pumbulanga, where there are 90,000 workers in mines and power plants alone. I know when I go to India, people talk about 15 million people who depend on coal mining. It seems very small, but in a country where you have 50% unemployment almost is, you know, talking about closure and accelerating closures and credibly politically and socially sensitive. And in Pumbulanga, unemployment is above 50%. And for young women, it's almost 70%. And that's the context in which, you know, changing energy systems or energy being built in new places has enormous political salience. So over the last 10 years in South Africa, since labor and civil society in particular fought to get just transition into South Africa's climate policy, but especially in the last five years or so, the concept has really become incredibly prominent. The president appointed two years ago something called the Presidential Climate Change Commission, the PCC, and that they've really brought just transition into the public debate around energy transition. It has huge political salience now. The PCC, which advises government on climate action, including just transition, comprises representatives from civil society, from business, from government, from labor, and also from the youth. And they provide inputs and they've developed over the last few years the national just transition framework. So that was approved by cabinet about a month ago. And this provides a really interesting framework for the country to now start to think about how do you actually operationalize the just transition? So as this energy transition unfolds, how do you address energy access and these other associated issues? And our JTF has three principles embedded within it. Procedural justice, so the processes must be fair, distributive, so the costs and benefits must be equally distributed or fairly distributed, not equally. And restorative justice, which recognize that we're not starting from a place of justice, and that there needs to be redress and remediation and rehabilitation for communities who are really impacted by fossil fuels and who will be further impact by climate policy. In the JTF, there are then kind of three policy areas which government has identified as areas of action for them. And these will be implemented across value chains. So coal is obviously hugely important, but also agriculture, tourism, automotives, other sectors that are going to be impacted by climate policy and these will be implemented kind of in response to identified vulnerabilities. So those are social protection measures and this could be temporary income support, it can be grants, it can be retraining allowances, there's sort of various elements of that. Industrial development, innovation and economic diversification. So a lot of effort goes into industrial policy into new sectors into diversifying both regional economies but also the national economy. So switching to electric vehicles, for example, electric vehicle manufacturing and finally skills development in human resource development which recognizes that of course workers are going to be hugely impacted, but it's a bigger question around the education system and green jobs and skills for unemployed youth. And the kind of goals of the JTF are I think incredibly ambitious. It aims to achieve a quality of life for all South Africans in the context of increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate. It looks at climate resilience. The goals include decent work, social inclusion and poverty eradication but it puts people at the center of decision making including the poor, women, people with disabilities and the youth. It's about building resilience in the economy, affordable, decentralized and diversely owned renewable energy and conserving natural resources. So there's a huge amount of ambition and what we're seeing now is how do you start to operationalize this? What does it mean? And how do you embed this in government policies? So we have this national framework. Our Department of Mineral Resources and Energy is also in parallel been working on their own just energy transition framework. Regional governments are developing phase one strategies. It's kind of cascading and diffusing through government. And our national estate and utility SCOM is starting to repower and repurpose coal plants including really interestingly developing a renewable energy training center at one at one of them that's about to close. But what have we learned so far? I think there's some emerging lessons which have salience more broadly. The most important thing is this is about development not energy. In situations of poverty and inequality the inescapable focus of governments and other stakeholders is really development. It can't just be about decarbonization or energy transition defined narrowly. And there's an ongoing tension between decarbonization only or decarbonization first and what you need for these sort of place-based context-specific interventions. How do you respond to people's lived realities? If you go into coal regions what people say is they're worried about water security, food security, going hungry that services they're worried about housing and education. And renewable energy is important but it's not always the response to some of these challenges. So there are a lot of areas that are going to need work as part of a just transition which are not just about energy. Some are. We need energy access of course. We need public transport. But there are other questions in South Africa that I think have relevance elsewhere. So informality, how are local economies, how does the informal economy connect to fossil fuels? Who owns new assets? How are they financed? How are sustainable livelihoods supported for people? In economic diversification we have really interesting projects being proposed with really high levels of social ambition but the finance sector doesn't know how to respond to them. So you need new models of finance. You need new financial systems to deliver social ambition. Of course worker transition, skills and education, redeployment and retraining are important but in contexts where you have 70% youth unemployment that's not always the only area that needs focus. And one thing that's being discussed at least by researchers in the country is around social protection and thinking bigger. So should we be thinking about universal basic income in the context of a transition? A transition grant for all impacted people. The second thing we're starting to see is that governance and institutions are obviously very important but it takes a really long time to embed and institutionalize the idea of just transition. So we have a vision and we have principles but how do you translate that into government action at multiple levels? How do you diffuse it into budgets? This is not trivial. Sometimes you need new institutions. We're developing a green economy cluster, for example, in a pulmalanga which will drive economic diversification but sometimes it's about getting institutions to incorporate or expand their mandates to think about how they roll in the just transition will unfold. And there's a need to expand many areas of action, as I've said. We have to develop and support expertise in those areas, our outland. We need sufficient support for technical analysis and data. There's, you know, I've got workshops looking at different countries all the time where people are not even really sure how many people are going to be impacted. That's not well understood. And these huge ongoing gaps in knowledge and you need to build experts and expertise across sectors beyond energy. So industrial policy, sustainable livelihoods and we need to think about how to draw and then link all of those existing experts and policy communities to be part of this orchestra of interventions. Those are the pillars that you're going to have to build a transition on. It's a really great organizing concept that you have to bring together and kind of operationalize this new development pathway. And of course, movement building and political change, procedural justice depends on it and people must be empowered to participate in these futures. And in South Africa, I mean, despite all of this work on just transition and this kind of momentum and this impetus, we've seen there as in many other countries that vested interests start to adopt the language of just transition and use it as a risk. They say, this is a barrier to action. We shouldn't have climate action because of the just transition implications. And in South Africa, we still have many new coal mines being planned and develop their new coal plants and the development in other countries in Africa. There's an enormous amount of political momentum around not coal, but new gas and new oil. So all of the work at this conference, I think, will be really exciting this week. You know, there's this work on stranded assets and of course the legal feminist and community strategies of resistance to fight that remaining carbon luck in. And as Kristoff said, to make sure that they aren't regressive and higher levels of unsustainable extraction than are needed even under climate policy. Thank you. Thanks so much, Jesse, for giving us a preview of some coming attractions at the conference to talk about just transitions and to invoke this notion of resistance and procedural justice because with that in mind, a great honor and privilege to introduce Nemanthe Niquimo. She is the co-founder of Amazon Frontlines and she's an Indigenous Waurani leader who's inspired her people to legal victories in Ecuador. I don't know if you've read about them. They're quite stunning. A great example of free prior and informed in consent in action to protect their ancestral territory. Half a million acres of primary rainforest in the Amazon. It's worth also noting that she was elected the first female president of the Waurani Organization of Pastaza Province and just check out her bio. Time, 100 most influential people of the year. BBC, most influential women. We should make that distinction. Just really impressive and an honor to have you here, Nemanthe. I'll also mention that along with Nemanthe is her colleague, Alex, who is going to do translation. So, go ahead, Nemanthe and those of you who speak Spanish, you don't need it. I can't do it. Don't worry, Nemanthe. I can't do it. My name is Nemon Tenenquimu. I respect her. Before I introduce my culture, it's singing. This music, I have a red volcano. es colectivo o vuela en la masonía y ellos llevan mensaje a la vida y eso yo vengo desde la masonía una mujer de la masonía que traigo a la vida para difundir con ustedes. Good afternoon everyone my name is Nemo Tenen Kimo I'm a Waorani woman in my culture before we speak in this kind of setting we always start with a song and this song is about how the red macaw in the Amazon never flies alone it always flies together and flying together allows it to fly further and to navigate better and so like a macaw I have come from very far away I have flown here to bring my message to you all about my land and my people. Antes de hablar sobre las leyes y comunicaciones primero quiero contestar la historia del pueblo Waorani before I share about my people's legal struggle and and our communications campaigning I want to tell you about my people. Mi gente Waorani vivían en la selva por miles años mucho mucho años sin conocer petróleo sin conocer nada de de la vida de mundo occidental ellos vivían en la selva conexión con la naturaleza en armonía for thousands of years my people lived in the Amazon rainforest without fossil fuels without oil we maintained a deep and harmonious connection with the natural world y los evangélicos entraron el año 50 en territorio Waorani a conquistar nuestro alma a conquistar nuestro petróleo que vive debajo de nuestro tierra in the 1950s evangelical missionaries arrived in our territory they came with the goal of conquering our people conquering our souls and extracting our resources y los evangélico trayeron a una sola comunidad a los peoros Waorani y los Waorani mis abuelos mi mi familiar murieron uno de los diarios cien cien cien cien personas día por el enfermedad polio primer contacto and they brought with them diseases like polio and in the height of the impact of those diseases on my people my grandparents will talk about how a hundred people would die every day yo crecí en medio de eso conquista I was born in the middle of this conquest y yo aprendí mucho de mis abuelos yo aprendí mucho llanto de mis de mis abuelos y y y crecí esa forma debiendo que los abuelos contaban que antes de contacto al mundo vivían armonía vivían feliz no había enfermedad no había otro temor vivían libre comían pescaban recolectaban fruta y vivían bien saludable and I learned a lot from my grandparents growing up from their stories about times before contact with the outside world how they lived how our people lived in harmony with nature how we live happy how we didn't suffer from major diseases and how we had enough food to eat and clean water to drink y cuando yo crecí cuando yo soy joven me fui a conocer a otro pueblo que los petróleo estaba primer contacto as a young woman I had the opportunity to travel into other indigenous territories where I saw the impacts of oil over decades y cuando me voy donde otros pueblos veo que el petróleo es desarrollo para el ciudad es grande los pueblos compañeros estaban toda la comunidad frustrado su su territorio no había animales no había va limpio hasta la cultura de idioma de ellos estaba perdido desconectado and I saw the impacts of oil in other territories and how when the government was talking about development for indigenous peoples the extraction of oil did not mean development it led to deforestation to the loss of animals and to the lack of clean water y a las mujeres vi testimonio que ellos no pueden tener salud buena tenía cáncer y tenían los niños deformados y muerto también I spoke with women who told me about the sicknesses and the cancer they were experiencing I saw children born with deformed children y ahí em empecé a nacer coraje yanto de mis hermanas llanto de los otros pueblos empecé a encabezar liderar como mujer joven I became very angry hearing these stories from women seeing the children and I decided to become a leader and to work together with my people porque la gente de afuera ven en la selva verde baldio los indígena no utilizan son in orante dice los mujeres indígenas somos sabios que representamos y tenemos mucho amor por miles años en la selva and while governments and extractive companies look at our territory from afar and they just see an empty land full of resources to extract for my people this is not the case for us we see a territory that is full of life and we have a deep love for our territory por eso mismo yo empecé a dibujar para el mundo que conozca porque el mundo y el gobierno ve en la selva es petróleo minería y maderera and so our people we begin to create our own map so that we could show the governments in the outside world what our territory really means to us pero para nosotros como mujer indígena para los pueblos indígena la selva es lleno de vida es farmacia es un lugar donde nosotros podemos vivir en un lugar donde los ancestros están debajo de nosotros hay un lugar donde hay sagrado hay un lugar que nos hace conectar hay un lugar que nos hace respetar to show the world that for us our land is everything it's our pharmacy it's where our ancestors are buried it's a land full of sacred places y de ahí un momento estado ecuatoriano en el año 2012 entró en mi mi territorio donde yo vivo donde yo nací donde yo crecí and it was at the time that we were building this map that the government came into my people's territory into the land where I was born and where I grew up entre el gobierno estado ecuatoriano en un avión sin sin comunicar nosotros los pueblos indígena no pasamos como en la ciudad en la casa nosotros tenemos mucho que hacer estamos en la selva caminando pescando yendo a ver las plantas y yendo a ver nuestras frutas para traer el consumo nadie estaba el avión entró en el territorio lo que estaba en la comunidad poca dijo que ustedes que necesitan hizo pregunta eso the government the representatives from the Ecuadorian government arrived in my community in a small plane and when they arrived there was very few people in the community because we're busy people we we we spend our time hunting fishing tending to our crops in our in our gardens and so the government arrived and asked the very few people that were present what do you need y luego le entregaba cola y luego le hizo firmar luego le hizo tomar foto y regresaron en una hora en avión saliendo a la fuera they they heard from the people about what they needed they gave them coca-cola they asked them to sign their names on a list and within one hour they took off in their plane y de repente escuchamos en 2018 el gobierno estaba pronunciando hay bloque 22 que está en una fuerta para vender en los países grandes y nosotros dijimos donde es bloque 22 desconocíamos and in 2018 we heard that the government was auctioning our lands and what they were calling oil block 22 auctioning our lands off to the highest bidder from around the world y nosotros dijimos dónde es y luego vimos en nuestro mapa era donde justamente estaba construido mi casa los otros vecinos toda la edad de 16 comunidades dentro de la esta comunidad and so our people asked well what is oil block 22 we've never heard of this let's see what this is all about and we looked at where oil block 22 and compassed and we saw that it was my community it was neighboring communities it was a total of 16 communities in pastasa province y luego nosotros ya estábamos hecho dibujado nuestro mapa con los abuelas con los niños empezamos a reunir inmediatamente and because we had been working together to build this territorial map we were already we were unified and so we came together to discuss this problem más que todos en cabezamos levantamos las mujeres todos los niños y decidimos nuestra casa nuestro territorio es nuestra decisión and so with the leadership particularly of our women we decided to stand up and fight and we made the decision collectively that our territory is our home and it is not for sale para mí esa lucha era unión respeto amor y sabiduría for me this fight was about unity it was about love and it was about respect los derechos no pueden salvar rights alone will not save us nuestro sabiduría y nuestro respeto nuestro valor unió es la victoria our wisdom our connection our unity and our love and respect for each other this is what gives us strength esa victoria también no solamente para pueblas indígena ahora ni si no quedó precedente para otros nacionalidad en el ecuador we took the government to court and we won and our victory is not just about our people alone it's not just a benefit for my community but it sets a legal precedent that can be used by other indigenous peoples en el derecho corte dice que hay derecho entonces nosotros tenemos derecho como pueblos indígenas a decidir lo que pasa en nuestros en nuestra selva our case builds off of an existing right at the international level and establishes in my country the right for indigenous peoples to decide what happens on our lands y también aprovechamos de difundir en comunicación para que nos respalda nuestra lucha porque era también importante sabemos que el gobierno y el petróleo es muy grande y es muy poderoso nos puede vender con con el dinero a los fuentes a big part of our of our fight to us building solidarity with people around the world using communications channels to connect with people because the forces we are up against the government is big and we are small but through connection with people around the world we can be stronger pero lo que yo puedo decir como mujeres warani siento muy orgullosa por que subimos firmes estuvimos firmes decidiendo con nuestro derecho para la vida de nuestros hijos y también para el futuro as a warani woman I am proud of what we achieved because we stayed firm and we stayed strong in our unity and what we are fighting for is not just ourselves it's for future generations en ese lucha yo me reflexioné muy profundo yo no me ido a universidad a mí me ha guiado los ancestros la selva me ha hecho entender el respeto y el valorar nuestro conocimiento I can stand here and tell you I never went to university but my strength and my vision comes from my ancestors and it comes from the respect that they have taught me y el coraje y la unión and there it is them that gives me my strength and helped our unity y yo ha venido dar mensaje aquí muchas de las veces no hemos tenido ese espacio las mujeres indígena especialmente para poder concluir para poder dar ideas porque muchas de las veces en el mundo ya están dando cuenta el cambio climático está aumentando and I've come here to give a message because often indigenous women we are excluded from these kinds of spaces these spaces for policy and decision-making las mujeres indígenas tenemos result resultado y solución no somos como mujeres académica siempre queremos como resultado adecuado yet we are the ones on the front lines and is through our struggle that we are having real impact against climate change espero que es el lucha ustedes difundan y unan para poder construir mejor mundo para futuro generación y muchísimas gracias and I hope that you have heard my message today and that you will and that you will include us in your work that you will include our perspectives and our voices and that you will share our message thank you very much I feel like you didn't even need to translate that last part but you did and thank you for doing that so well thank you in amante for making the long voyage to share with us well okay so we've heard how from the front lines of what fossil fuel production means in communities and how these issues can be resolved both at the local level all the way to the global dimension in terms of markets and prices and actions to balance the need to phase down fossil fuels to ramp up clean energy and the urgency of that and getting that in the right rhythm and all the elements we need to bring to doing just transitions well so with that now it's time to open it up to the audience and allow you to ask a few questions of our panelists so please introduce yourself your name affiliation and who you are directing the question to so we have a microphone and I see Roberto's hand popped right up there right in the back thank you well I don't know if you can hear me my name is Roberto Schaefer I'm a professor from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro and also a CLA from chapter three long term mitigation pathways from the recent IPCC report and my question goes to Christophe Christophe my question here is why IEA has focused so much on 2050 because as we have learned from the recent IPCC report what really is necessary is not to be net zero by 2050 but you need to be net zero to by the time the cumulative emissions have reached a level that temperature rise has reached 1.5 degree so my question is because what's really important here is the trajectory not that time of net zero because this can somehow can send a wrong message that you don't need to do anything provided that reach net zero to 2050 and finally why CO2 only because climate change not only about CO2 and why energy only for many developing countries energy is not the issue but deforestation etc etc so these are the points that I like to comment thank you very much thank you very much for the for the question I will answer the first the last point you mentioned first which is why energy and that's because we are the International Energy Agency and that's our expertise is and so I we do take into account of course emissions from other sources from land use change from agriculture and but we really want our focus to be on the energy sector and it's another very good reason for that which is that we do hear a number of groups talking about offsetting emissions from the energy sector from action outside of the energy sector and what we wanted to do was to show that the energy sector itself can be net zero emissions it is possible for it itself to be net zero it doesn't need to rely on offsets from from elsewhere in terms of why we talk about 2050 we anchor things on 2050 because if we have a large reduction in emissions to 2030 and then you continue that trajectory onwards that is in line with the latest science on CO2 budgets on carbon budgets so roughly speaking from 2020 to 2050 in our net zero scenario that is a cumulative emissions of around about 500 billion tons in line with a 50-50 trumps of 1.5 degrees but as I mentioned this is not just about delaying everything to the last moment we do have very rapid action over the next 10 years we need to see that not just in terms of the deployment of technologies we know about in terms of electric cars in terms of efficiency but also in terms of those new technologies that aren't yet at a very mature stage whether that's things like hydrogen whether it is things like decarbonizing some of high temperature uses in industry we need to see action there over these next 10 years so that by the time we get to 2030 we're able for things to ramp up at scale and finally on why CO2 emissions we focus on CO2 emissions because that's how the carbon budget is framed however we do model all other energy related greenhouse gas emissions and in particular we assume a very rapid reduction in methane emissions coming from fossil fuel operations there's around about 120 million tons of methane coming from oil gas and coal operations today and we have that dropping by three quarters within the next eight years so by 2030 those emissions are at very very low levels and that's very very important because that methane change just by itself reduces the temperature rise of sorry it avoids around about 0.1 degree of temperature increase so it's not just about CO2 emissions we do absolutely take into account methane emissions as well all right thanks let me see a showing of hands and I'll try to get an idea of roughly and I'm gonna try to mix it up by age gender and all of that good stuff so some people I happen to recognize and I'm not picking on you because I know your names but because I did see your hands go up early so Natalie hopefully I'm the only Natalie in the room with a hand up hi I have a question for Christoph also I'm Natalie Jones I work for IASD and I really enjoyed your presentation thank you so much I actually had a question about the Africa about the Africa energy outlook that came out earlier this year and when I was reading it I seemed to I guess I noticed I'm a discrepancy with the apologies taking words a while to come out today we'll see we'll see if they actually play ball and with the findings of the world energy outlook that no new production is needed and then in the Africa energy outlook it seemed like there was a bit more gas production in Africa and I was wondering if you could explain this discrepancy thanks yeah that's a good idea let's take a few questions let's take let's take three questions all right so I see masked gentlemen there thank you she not so am I from national issues and political studies Japan so I have a question so you said the high for surprise is not a substitute for crime and policy so you just want to ask you about your takes on ILA like in Inflation Reduction Act in US and for me it seems like ILA representing a new allow of the crime and policy it's addressing like reducing the energy prices but at the same time addressing the crime and policy so what do you think about the IAA it's kind of like it's new like what do you take on ILA thank you and let's see some hands up again but just for Jesse or Nemonte all right yes your question hello I am Dr. Cardoso from University in Magdalena and I have a question for Nemonte and Nemonte the block 22 is in the Yasuni Park right if you can tell us more about Yasuni and también quisiera que nos contarán más de la cosmogonía del pueblo indígena de su relación con la naturaleza y como esa relación con la naturaleza y con la con la selva madre influye en su lucha so the question that I understood was if Nemonte could elaborate on how block 22 fits within the Yasuni context and then also I didn't understand cuadrajoni yes I want her to tell us more about the cosmogony and the relationship to the to the nature and to the forest because behind this this fight is their their beliefs and the importance of the all right go ahead do you want to just start there in a month and then we'll come back to your stuff I'm just going to repeat the question yes yes absolutely well this question is very important in the corridor where we live Yasuni is already operating the oil where I live the Yasuni is north of the Amazon where I live south because Yasuni is already building oil where I live in block 22 there is no carotera there is no oil exploitation in view of that although there is a lot to defend the laws of Yasuni but the president of the Ecuadorian does not respect and then where I live we head very strong against him and other indigenous peoples had a lot of fear they said Nemo your people community now in block 22 pastasas we are only 22 communities very very small the family is not big the diversity is 200 thousand hectares and no matter that we fight and win against the government because because it was important because we had connections it gave us fear although they say that even even said oil workers say that they are like a flower picker has a long peak in the flower chupa the flow escape and does not destroy so they say supposedly the oil workers but in reality it will never be as a hummingbird to suck only the bad that's part of it all he is that's all right ecuador have been miles miles of Rames but not been remedied for oil and not even the government not have the capacity and based on that we do not want to repeat that story we have declared that is where I live block 22 is like a like a symbol that they can not touch now and that's what we are so thank you very much for your question so to answer the first part of your question the oil block 22 actually is not within Yasuni National Park it's to the south in Yasuni National Park they're already extracting oil from several oil blocks we see what is happening in Yasuni and that is all the more reason why we have to defend our lands from oil extraction in Yasuni and that's why we've taken a firm stance no roads and no extraction in our territories in Yasuni we see the hypocrisy of the government and we see the fragility of the national park system and this protection from the government level we see how that hypocrisy and how oil can still be extracted from these places that are supposed to be protected which is why we are going up against the government we are a small nation a lot of people told us you're so few people you'll never be able to go up against this big government with some with all of its resources but through our connection with each other and our territory we stood firm without fear and we were able to win the government talks about it's the technologies that it can use to extract oil in a way that won't hurt the environment they present it like how a hummingbird flies and takes nectar out of the flower without touching the flower and harming the flower but we know that this is impossible because we've seen the devastation from oil over the last five decades we've seen thousands of oil spills across the amazon and how the government fails and the oil companies fail to do any remediation we don't want this situation to repeat that's why we are firm in our stance so for us oil block 22 in our territory has become a symbol of the fight against extraction all right thanks um Christoph thank you I will be brief so we can get through some other questions on on the africa energy outlook the the main scenario within the africa energy outlook was what we call the sustainable africa scenario which was slightly different from the net zero emission scenario so some of the conclusions on fossil fuel developments were different because there were different scenarios but just to say briefly on that there is a very large amount of natural gas in africa which has been discovered but not yet developed and we did look at what the impacts would be if all of that was to be developed and one of the key numbers that came through from this was that today africa is responsible the continent of africa as a whole is responsible for three percent of cumulative co2 emissions since the industrial revolution if all of that gas which has been discovered is developed that would go from three percent to three and a half percent so a very very very small increase it is also likely that some of that will be developed regardless of whichever pathway we we go on as a world and in terms of the inflation reduction act it is a very positive step forward I mean it is one of the things I mentioned talking about the political economy of transitions we have seen some positive moves like the inflation reduction act like repower EU and this will help move the needle and we were currently updating our scenarios and we will fully include that inflation reduction act in our scenarios and you will see a big impact on clean energy deployment and on fossil fuel use as as a result so it's a very positive step forward and it's one of the the key kind of bright spots that we've seen despite everything that's that's been going on well thanks it's great to be able to end on a on a few positive notes the victories and in in Ecuador and what you've been able to do the just transitions partnership which Jesse is involved in which we'll have a chance to explore more dimensions of as well as advances in clean energy that still fall way short of what we need to be seeing I saw a ton of hands pop up that's a fantastic sign for the conversations you're about to have at the coffee break I know you wanted to ask your question but we're out of time in this session so I want to just thank everybody for your energy there's going to be plenty of time for discussions and let's give it up for this panel