 As I think you gathered, we have two meetings going on simultaneously. Upstairs are the diplomats, President Fabius, the president of the French Supreme Court, who was the leader of COP 21, is presenting an initiative on a global pact for the environment. And so there are legal specialists up there. But I told them that the what to do was down here with all the engineers. And so the job upstairs is to open up the political space, the diplomatic space, the economic space. But here is what are we supposed to do? Because at least I'm not an engineer, just a great admirer of engineers. You have to tell us, basically, what is possible, where are we going? As a policy advisor, you can tell me this is what we need, what we need in terms of R&D, what we need in terms of public regulation, what we need in terms of treaty framework. But also you have to say why this is what we can deploy. I'm a little disheartened to hear this discussion. We give up the carbonization because it took a long time to get the public to understand that this was basically a technical issue to an important extent. And I'm a little wary of giving up the term easily because what it has taught is that we need pathways that are technical solutions to technical problems. I often speak on this topic by saying that it is not that coal, oil, and gas in any way are evil or immoral or anything else. They happen to have the side effect of leading to a rise in concentration of carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide happens to have the quantum chemical properties that it absorbs infrared radiation. This is not a moral question. It is a technical question. And therefore, we need a technical approach. And I also emphasize because there are lots of dreamers who say, oh, no more technology. Let's get out of this technology approach. It always makes things worse. But first, that's a lie or a profound mistake because the world is vastly better for the technological advances that we've had. That's how we live the length and quality of life that we do. And second, don't dream of doing this without even more sophisticated solutions. We have nearly 8 billion people on the planet. And every one of them needs safe water and safe food every day. And they want to need a lot more than that. And we do not have the means to ensure anything close to that except through very sophisticated systems. And very sophisticated systems provided by very sophisticated systems engineering companies like NL. So there's no way to do this without a high tech approach. And that's why the message here and what you come up with is absolutely essential. And that's why we're determined to have the low emission solutions conference as an ongoing institution that can feed in in a serious way to the diplomatic discussions. So what comes out of the discussions in the next day and a half will feed into discussions at top 23. They will feed into the meetings of the president of the General Assembly, Nerslav Lycek is planning for this year. They will feed into the advice that I can give to the Secretary General for short that he is extremely interested and attentive to all of this. They will feed into the meeting on December 12 in Paris that President Macron has called on the second anniversary of the Paris Climate Agreement to bring world leaders around to this. And they will feed into politics everywhere because the politicians who don't know very much and we created a politician to prove that. And just to remind us that the politicians need information. They do not know what to advocate except that there is clarity of what to do and how to move forward. And so I see this, I see the need for engineers to leave that case in a much more visible, coherent, systematic, policy-linked manner than in the past. We see every day, we don't need the engineers to observe the horror of Hurricane Maria hitting Puerto Rico at this moment. We see the damage. We can have lots of films about the calving of the ice sheets and all of the disasters around. But none of that is going to leave anywhere. Unless we're told, here's how a grid based on a high input of intermittent renewable energy can work. Here is how an electric vehicle fleet can work. Here are scenarios for how economic change will impact this. And I think, Francesca, what you said about the curve being bent earlier in development is going to really be true because a lot of the information-rich economy is going to actually save a tremendous amount of material input, a shared economy. We're going to use vehicles in a completely different way than we have in the past. I came here, actually I didn't come here when they were late, so I jumped in a cab now that I'm hanging about it. But normally, I come here by getting in a lift or an Uber immediately. And thanks God, I don't own a car. And I don't think that most of us are going to own cars in the future and in developing countries that are looking for pathways to development. The old model looked like the United States with two cars in every garage. This is absolutely an illusion. Useless, unnecessary from a quality of life point of view, never to be realized. Thank goodness it doesn't just mean the greatest traffic jams in the history of creation. And we're going to have different ways to do things. So I think that all of that means that the modeling of this is crucial. And being on the cutting edge with the vision of what is really possible is crucial. And working, if I may say, with cutting-edge companies is essential, the ones that are making the future. And part of my job is also to press companies to move faster. I remember when I was with the CEO of Nissan and he said, and I'm almost sure I'm going to be right, he said that he had asked his engineers, this was a year ago, how big should our electric vehicle fleet be in our total fleet for sales in 2030? And the answer that the engineers gave was one third. And I said, I'm sure that's wrong. That is not safe, prudent, or consistent with the carbon budget, or at all with the pace of change. My guess is, by 2030, you're just going to be selling non-polluting vehicles, whether it's all of electrics or other versions, not absolutely sure. But I would suppose that the electric vehicles will be more than half of the fleet sold. And then we're seeing a cascade this year of companies announcing that they're getting out, cities announcing that they're going to go all electric, even before 2030 in northern Europe, and then for us mortals in other parts of the world that aren't quite as good as the Nordics on everything, maybe 2030, 2035 or 2040. So I feel that what we have missed, but what we're very close to now, is a knowledge-led solution. Up until now, we've had all the reasons for fear and concern. They're very real. It's not to denigrate any of that information brought by the climate scientists that have been able to save the world all of that knowledge. But it's not climate science that's going to get us out of the mess. It's engineering that's going to get us out of the mess. And explaining that very clearly now, I think, is crucial. As I just, and here, my theory of change in all of this, how we're really going to do this, is first, clarity from the technical side for the public of what is this transformation. I still like decarbonization because it makes sense to me. And it's 70% of the story or 75% of the story. We need one word anyway. So D greenhouse gas emissions won't do quite anything. So if you come up with a good alternative word that's more accurate, that's OK. But until then, I'm using decarbonization. We need that clarity. What does it entail? It's when I read Jim Williams' study in science back in 2012 that said, it's easy, three pillars, energy efficiency, zero carbon electricity, and fuel switching. I said, oh, OK, now I understand the pathway for the first time. So we need that spelled out. I think that's becoming more and more clear. What are the pathways? We need pathways for every part of the world because every part of the world has to solve this problem. In India, the prime minister has to have in his mind, OK, I get it. This is the pathway. It's not really based on coal. This is really feasible. China's president, Xi, has to have it clearly in his mind. This is the way forward. China's going all electric vehicles. They'll probably be the world's suppliers of electric vehicles very shortly if we don't get on a move in other parts of the world. But what is the pathway? That's number one. Second, how does that relate to an economic model? That's partly my job and partly the job of economists who used to work in a kind of black box. So, OK, we have some kind of mystical production function and in response with certain elasticity to a carbon price, we've got to get out of that game. We have to understand an economic model's specific technologies and paths. And, of course, with uncertainties, with the future learning and learning curves and possibilities of surprises. But my guess is that almost all the technology or all the technology that we'll need to mid-century is already deployed someplace. I doubt, I don't know, I'll ask Klaus and others, are there things still in the idea stage that will be in large-scale deployment by 2050 realistically? Are there things that should be that are still at the conceptual stage? My guess is that almost everything that we're going to deploy at large scale is already at least in prototype. But probably already somewhere at a very small scale. Then third is the policy framework. And we're in that process right now, in most of the world. I personally would not over-worry about the United States as weird as it is right now. Trump, as long as he doesn't destroy the world, he is a blip of the phenomenon. He's not changing anything fundamental in terms of the direction. We're not in a new fossil fuel era, depending, despite the morning tweet. He's not changing any mines anywhere. It's a last-ditch lobbying effort by the hard-core fossil fuel interests that dominate the Republican Party. It is not anything more fundamental than that. And it will go away, and I'm quite confident. But it's delaying policy planning, except at the state and the regional level. But there's a tremendous amount going on at the state and regional level across this country. I co-chair the advisory board for New York City. I can tell you how much practical work is underway to get emissions down to year zero by mid-century, and that's not buildings. That's not transport. That's not grid. And a lot of very interesting things going on that has come into the process in Washington. Then I think that there's a tremendous change already in the financial markets, the financial markets. But this will be tested within a few weeks. For example, will the Keystone pipeline go forward? If it does, I apologize. I'll be greatly surprised. I don't know why anyone would put a penny into that project. It's useless. There's no role for Canadian oil sands in a carbon constrained future. The project will have a fewer loss if it actually does go forward. So my guess is that it'll be postponed and that never materialize in the future. We have at least $20 trillion of assets under ESG investing, environmental, social governance investing. Right now there are criteria. And it's also our job to make sure that the lawyers and all the companies are telling the management, you better be careful, you're going to be viable. That's part of the work upstairs. Clarify the legal responsibility that if you go forward with a high carbon system, you are in a foreseeable way inflicting added harm on others. And there will be legal culpability for that, I believe. And so I think ExxonMobil and Chevron and Coke Industries have better watch out because we're coming after you. And there will be lawsuits and there will be claims made and that is what we need to also help move the financing. And eventually, even in this country, there will be carbon pricing and regulation back again. But it may wait till the post-Trump period, which could be any day, or in 2020, you never know as these things go. And then finally, we're going to hold together the global financing. Paris Climate Agreement is not going away. I watched pretty close up the G20 this year. The U.S. government was not only growing, but it was trying to break away several countries in the negotiations. It was trying to convince Turkey, Russia, Indonesia, Southeast, all members of the G20. Come with us, we'll put in a clause, nobody moved. So if you read the communique, it's 19 to one. Very clearly, the U.S. has a blah, blah paragraph. Makes no sense, we're going to still honor blah, blah, but we're going to not be in the Paris Climate Agreement. And then the other 19 say the Paris Climate Agreement is firm and non-negotiable. That's the real way of the communique. Nothing is breaking the mind of the communique. And that's why I view the Trump effect as very transitory as well. So let me end here, just ask the engineers to have a really robust discussion and clarity about all the different aspects of the grid management, the low carbon solutions, the role which remains a very big question mark in the policy world of carbon capture, carbon storage, reuse, and also nuclear energy. Because here I feel that we have not really been clear enough at least in the U.S., Europe, part of the global story about what's really needed for a scale quantified, robust and rapid transition to a low emissions future. Thank you very much. Thank you.