 Welcome, everybody. It's really great to be back here with so many people who I know are going to contribute so much to what is the energy's clean transition debate. Of course, we know where we're at. We know where we're at post COP 21. But what about the implementation? A lot of people have promised a lot of amazing things from NOCs to governments, to IOCs, to utility companies, to great state actors as well. So we want to know what the implementation is looking like and how much further we need to go, especially in the energy industry. This is about energy industry's production and consumption, which according to the blurb, two thirds of the world's greenhouse gas emissions comes from that air as well. So it's where we can make some huge gains as well. And how will the energy sector drive the transition towards a carbon neutral global economy? I'm not going to spend a huge amount of time at this moment going through what we're going to talk about. What I want to do is get straight into this amazing panel. So starting on my left, let me just tell you who we have here to debate this today. The other point I do want to raise is that this is interactive. The panel know that this is interactive and I'm hoping they're going to spar with each other and challenge each other and debate heartily. And I know at least two or three of the panelists here I've worked with previously and I'm very confident they will. But also it's up to you lot as well, people who have a lot of vested interest in this as well. If you do want to get involved in this, let it be known to me and we can get a microphone to you and we'll get you involved in the debate as well. But we'll do that obviously after we've had the initial round of questions. So let me just tell you who we have on our panel. I'm delighted to welcome and I think it's the first time to Davos, is Nurebekri who is the Minister of the National Energy Administration of China. And it's never been a better time to get China on board in Davos to talk about their progress today and what they still need to do going forward as well. Christiana Figueres, I don't know where to start really. This is the lady who's single-handedly with the help of some very English teabags. Got everyone. Fiji tips was the secret. Single-handedly with millions of people, right? You dragged the cats, the herd of cats to get COP21 done and it was a privilege to speak with you in December 2015 and get that going. And of course we've spoken since and you've since moved on to your latest mission, which is Mission 2020, which you're going to tell us a little bit more about in a few moments time as well. Great to see Oleg as well. Oleg, there are Pascal, the president of UC, Rousseau now for an aluminium company to make such great strides in energy conservation and getting down to missions. It's no mean feat. And Oleg's already made some very interesting comments previously about what renewables need to survive in the 21st century. Patrick Puyane, one of my favourite CEOs of an IOC. We've spent a lot of time chatting over years and I have a lot of respect for Patrick, not least because he argues a lot and I like that. I like his contention as well and we've already had one or two panels this year, so I'm looking forward to more of the same from Patrick today. And Ignacio Sanchez-Galan as well, who of course is the chairman and CEO of EBITROLA, who he tells me, and it says on their website, is the greenest utility in Europe and number one for renewables in the United States. So maybe we'll challenge that a little bit as well on that premise. I'm going to start off with Christiane, if I may, and just say what's the progress looking like in the energy industry? We have a whole host of people representing different parties here as well. You called for a lot of progress in late 2015. You called for dramatic action. Is the energy industry doing anywhere near enough to get to the target goals? You know, in Germany, where I used to live, there is a German word that doesn't exist in any other language, but I wish it would because we Latin Americans love to say both yes and no to every single question. And so in German, there is a word that is young, which is both yes and no. And so let me say start with the yes. And there I would really like to recognize the leadership around this circle, really quite amazing leadership, each from their different vantage point, to really support the direction that was set by governments and now take that to the real economy and begin to get serious traction on decarbonizing the economy on decarbonizing the global electric system in particular. And every single one of the gentlemen here are contributing to that really very seriously. So it is no longer a question of are we moving in the right direction? The direction is irreversible. It is incontrovertible. It is not going to change. The question for me, because you know I'm eternally provocative, the question for me is not the direction, but the speed and the scale, which is your second question of how much more do we have to do? And that is, you know, the piece that I am still struggling with and that I would very much appreciate having some comments on today because the fact is that we need to step up both speed and scale. So let's just get, you know, a sense of that. We need to be, please don't fall out of your chairs. We need to be at the maximum of global emissions of greenhouse gases by 2020. That is according to Costa Rican calendar four years from now. That sounds practically impossible. And in particular, if you begin to figure out what does that mean? That means just for us, you know, to begin to wrap our hands around it. It means practically that 50 percent of the electricity being generated around the world would have to be renewable or non non non non-emitting. It means that the last car with an internal combustion engine would have to be put on the road by 2035 and not a day after because we need to be at zero emission via transportation by 2050. And that is a huge step from where we are now. So I would challenge the wonderful gentlemen around the circle, not around the direction, which I think is fantastic. And each of them have shown incredible leadership. But from where we are to where we need to get to in four years, how are we going to do that? It is necessary, you know, that from science. It is advisable because of all of the many benefits that we're going to get. The question that we have to engage is how are we going to make it achievable? Cristiana, you did say you're going to be provocative, didn't you? Just a little bit. Who's the Laggards? Who's, if you had to say a part of the industry, you can name a country if you like. You can name a company if you like. You don't have to. But where do you have, where if you're being vague about it or being very provocative, all the areas where you want to give them the biggest prod? I think that one thing that is pretty clear to most people is that there is no space for any new coal. There is simply no space for any new coal. And I know that that is a very difficult reality for many countries to deal with. I have such respect for China who just yesterday cancelled our 101, I think, coal plants because of health reasons. But there's so many other reasons, right, to really, so we need, and I think that's, you know, that is a tough nut to crack in particular for developing countries because it's A, no new coal, and it is B, a premature, if you will, and I put that in quotation marks, but in an event, an early retirement of existing coal. It also means, for India who's not sitting around the table, it also means how do we support India to move beyond coal and certainly not to invest in subcritical coal technology, which is anyway the worst technology, how do we support that? China's taken a huge, huge leap on coal, but there are many other developing countries, India being one of the most, you know, postage, how do we support them in that? Which was part of the question in the talks in the first place. Well, I think that goes very nicely to Nurebekri as well. We can talk specifically about coal in a few moments' time, but tell me how you feel about the transition that China is enacting at the moment. Number one, I think, for wind, number one for photovoltaic, for solar more generally as well, but also number one for coal as well, so perhaps you'd like to address the speed of transition, sir. I am very happy to be at this session, Energy's Clean Transition, and I'm happy to share China's experiences and practices in Energy's Clean Transition. Of course, energy is a secret subject because without energy, we don't know how the world will turn out. But at the same time, energy is also a heavy and sensitive subject because today we are facing climate change and we are facing a lot of other challenges and we know many of these challenges are kind of caused, in a way caused by the use of energy. That's why the Chinese government attaches great importance to the development of clean energy and we really promote green and open and smart carbonized energy in future and we are also applying the structural adjustments on the supply side. Over the last few years, we have already adopted certain measures and the world has witnessed the results achieved. But, of course, China is the largest developing country in the world and we are also one of the largest energy producers and consumers. So, how to develop and use clean energy and improve energy efficiency is of great significance to the Chinese government over the last few years. We have already achieved certain progresses but compared to the general picture, maybe we have not achieved the expected, we have not met the expectations of the world. But at the same time, all these figures are quite phenomenal. For example, as regards wind energy, last year wind energy reached 150 million kilowatts and also other renewable energies have already ranked number one in the world. But you are all aware of the fact that coal is the dominant energy in China, not only right now. Even in the coming few years, coal will stay as the dominant energy in China. But now our focus is on how to use coal in a more sustainable manner. We want to use it in a clean and highly efficient way. And of course, we also have a very clear direction and orientation in how to achieve that. We want to use coal in a very clean way. And of course, we have to admit that coal energy is still very dominant. It took up 61.3 percent of the total energy mix. But you have to be aware of the fact that we had lowered the proportion of the ratio of coal among the total energy mix after years of efforts. And actually compared to other countries, the history of coal used in China was comparatively short because we used it only for 50 years and some other countries present had used it for over 100 years. And we have also carried out a lot of updates. And we have put a lot of stringent standards to achieve a low emission. So it has been very difficult. But we have made a lot of difficult. And also we are also trying to lower the consumption of coal to produce power. And here, actually to achieve one kilowatt of electricity in China, some companies use only 258 milligrams of coal. So you can see the consumption has been lowered. But to achieve to get rid of coal immediately and right away is quite invisible in China. Today, we are here to talk about clean energy transition. We should not get about the access to energy because in many parts of the world, including in sub-Saharan Africa, many people still do not have access to energy. And the world is a diversified place. Every country has its own specific situation. So when we talk about energy transition, when we talk about clean energy, we cannot have this one size fit all model. We have to take this into consideration. We just do not have one single model which is feasible, which is applicable to all the countries. Because in some countries, all countries have their own specific characteristics, including different demographic situation, or they are at different development phases. But I think everybody is willing to make an effort and if everybody can do it, his or her utmost, we will achieve our goals. Straight away, we've grappled the horns of the beast but I'm talking about coal and I appreciate you taking the coal comments head on. Europe preaches a lot about how clean we are and how signed up to COP21 we are. But I mean, Europe's greatest economy, or biggest economy, Germany, still uses what is it? Forty-odd percent of its electricity is produced from coal. Is Europe doing enough to push forward Ignacio? Are you finding any barriers to actually a quicker transition, the speed of transition that Cristiano has been talking about? Well, I think it's not a question to analyze what has been already done wrongly in the past. It's a question of what we have to do the things in the right direction for the future. The fact is that today there are 195 countries which is already concerned that the climatic change is a real problem. Has already signed a protocol in Paris saying that we have to do something in order to change the trend we've been facing the last year. So all we have already done things not in the right direction. But I think the question is not to look what has been done in this direction. So now I think there are two sides on that one. The world needs more energy, no doubt. The energy demand in the world is going to increase by 45 percent, 50 percent in the next 25 years. So how to combine the carbonization with the enough supply to the energy? And the solution is certain electrifying more and more the economy. So the electricity has already means for making already what the world require in a mass clean manner. So China is a good example. China is already transforming their economy in a cleaner manner. So I think my suggestion is to accelerate even more the process. But the thing is that's possible. So what that means? It means we have to invest much more in renewables. Today the renewables which are much competitive are the fossil fuels. So today solar and wind can compete with gas, oil and coal in most of the countries. You have to make a new power plant. You have the existing obsolete, new to new, they can compete. So why to continue doing things in the direction? I put the sample on my company. We have already diminished our emission by 75 percent in the last years. 75 percent. We have already closed almost all of our coal power plants. And we are producing more than we were producing before. We increase our size by five in the last 50 years. And we increase our profit by four. So it's possible to be more profitable, it's possible to grow, and it's possible to transform. The companies and the means for supplying that one is as well to involve much more the consumers. So I think today there are technologies, network technologies, digitalizing the grid. We have more than 200,000 kilometers of digitalized networks worldwide. We supply energy to more than 110 million customers worldwide. And I think if the consumers are already more aware about those things as well, the use can be already made more efficient. Ignacio, I'm encouraged and I like what you're saying. It's possible. I like what you're saying. So why can't you do it quicker than carbon neutral by 2050? So just doing what certain of us we've been doing. But do it quicker. I think Cristiano's saying let's do it quicker. It's possible. I think countries, emerging countries like Mexico for instance, it's already just transforming and closing their oil power plants and the coal power plant and investing in gas, combined cycle of gas, which has a meeting less. And it's investing in solar, it is investing in wind. So they are already just trying to diminish this trend at the same time that they are already making the supply. Countries in Germany, what is the point in Germany? So I think they've already invested a lot in renewables, but they are already at the same time, took decisions which making, trying to maintain the local coal, etc, etc. Same thing in my country, Spain as well. So there are another reason, a social reason which I understand, political reason which I understand, which is not already forcing to accelerate the process. But the process can already be accelerated. They already today means for already supplying the electricity in the world required with sources which are less contaminating than those one we've been already making from the past. So moving from oil and coal to gas and renewables is feasible. So we have already in certain countries a gas power, a gas power plant already not working and they are already burning coal at the same time. Just because in certain cases the fossil fuels are already certain subsidies. Today New Cristiano knows very well the subsidies to fossil fuels are three times more than those one which is paid globally. So the transition goes quicker without the subsidies. But then the emerging world that Nuo was talking about, they could potentially suffer there, yeah? But they can make already, they are doing, they are not making, they are making. So we have already, one of our subsidiaries is Gammesa, it's already factors in China. They are already, it's probably the first or the second country where they are making more gas, more turbines, wind turbines, most of them sold in China because they are investing in this. Probably they can already accelerate the process. In most cases the bottleneck is not already the power generation. It's the networks. So renewable require a lot of networks behind. In some cases the planning is not agile enough to have already ready the network required for already the evacuation of the energy which is produced. You make a power plant somewhere else, solar or photovoltaic or wind and they are not really the transmission ready in time. Patrick, your shareholders want you to make money. They want you to produce more oil and gas and I know the balance is moving towards the gas side. You aim to be 20% low carbon by 2035, 60% gas out of your oil and gas mix by 2035 as well. You have made some big investments, some power, SAFT as well. But you are also cutting capex at the same time, or certainly you have been in a cycle for the last couple of years. You are tying up a lot of things that the investors demand, the need to cut capex as well, the move to gas as well. Can you make bigger renewable investments? Can you speed things up with all of those pressures? Before to answer your question just a few comments. First energy is a very serious matter as it was perfectly said by Minister Bakerly. It's at the core of the development. So when we speak about energy transition, we speak about development of the world, emerging countries, developed countries. So there is no way to have a black and white story or suddenly a solution which will come from I don't know where. The reality today, and it has to face the reality, if you want to go find the solutions, is that, and I think that people don't know that, the energy mix of the world, you have 80% of fossil fuels in the energy mix of the world today. And if we want to go to a neutral zero climate zero CO2 neutral emission in 2050, we will still have hydrocarbons but linked to CCUS technologies. So it's a transition. It will not be like that. And we have to face the reality. And second point, it's a serious matter. And I would insist that what people expect from us, it's a reliable and affordable and a clean energy. But the three words are equally important. It's not clean about reliable, it's not clean about affordable because again, by the way, you don't know, but a liter of oil is half the price of a liter of water today. That's the reality. Cheap energy, valuable and reliable and clean. And it's equally important. But we have to keep that in mind to make this transition really if we are serious about it. So no, yes, coming back to your point, I am an oil and gas company. And clearly, you know, energy is 60% of CO2 emission, oil and gas is 40%. So I could be here as a valine, but I want to be part of the solution. And what we say to our shareholders, when we look to 20 years and we made an exercise, open with our balls and everybody, can we, or can we offer a mix of products to our customers, which will be evolved in a way to be on the low math of two degrees. And we discovered by making and working with many people, not alone, but yesterday I had 5% of coal, 50% for 60% of coal and 40% of gas in my mix, let's say. So let's stop coal. So I sold all my coal assets, otherwise it doesn't work. And if I'm moving my energy mix in total to something like 35% of oil, 45% of gas and 20% of renewables, which is feasible, I would be in 20 years exactly on my roadmap of two degrees. So our collective project in total, but we explained to our shareholders, let's do that. Which means let's be serious. And yes, I am an oil and gas company, but it's good. I received today $20 billion of revenues from oil and gas. The question is, how do we reallocate from my $20 billion of revenues to this renewable business? Maybe it's not enough. We allocate last year in 2016, I have reallocated $1.5 billion. In a world where I was struggling, like you said, because I had many constraints, the price of oil went down to $28 per bowl. I remember last week, last year exactly that. So we are doing it. It's a strategy. People tell me it could be more. Okay, but today it's a question also because what is sustainable is profits. It's no way for me to develop a sustainable model if I don't make profit. So I have, yes, a strategy, which is to grow. And last year we made, not only we are solar, we decided to invest in energy storage by buying a battery company because energy storage, you have to find a solution to store energy if you want to make the renewables profitable. There is no way to make it profitable because when I invest in 100 watts of solar, I use today only less than 20%. So there is a lot of loss. And so this is the point. So we are serious about it. I just would like to comment on the point that was rightly made by Cristina. It is clear that the main driver, there are two main drivers to be consistent with climate change is energy efficiency. If you want to be on the two degree on map, you cannot afford to waste energy. And frankly, we forget it in all the debates. We have a larger population, but we need to be much more efficient than today. That's the first point. And we need to work. And the second one is coal. But you know, the solution to coal, what is it? It's gas and nuclear. If you want to reconcile both, there is only one way is to put a price on CO2. As long as we don't have a price of CO2, there is no way that gas will overcome coal. And what I observed in the last year, and I'm a little worried to be honest, there are many countries around the world, not only Germany, because they will solve the issue. Many countries, we go to a mix of coal and renewables. India is going to coal and renewables. Japan is going to coal and renewables. If you think you look at the strategy, China goes to renewables. So it's a real challenge. And why? Because coal is the cheapest energy. It's the cheapest. Coal is cheap. Coop, you have plenty of coal. Plenty of coal in India, in China, in the US. So plenty of coal. So the question, if we are serious about that, we want to change this mix to more gas, more nuclear. I'm not in the nuclear business, but it's also a solution. If you don't put a price of CO2, it will never happen, because the economic players, the economic investors are rational people. And I'm obliged for my investors to make profits and to be rational, because my objective is not only, by the way, to distribute dividends. It's also to be a responsible player. And this climate change issue, by the way, I think is very important. Because it is today in a world where we see more and more nationalism around the world, the subject, the only global subject, which is a unity between all the countries. And I think it has been, it's quite extraordinary that this treaty was ratified in less than one year. Nobody would have guessed one one year ago. So this is really something strong. But at the same time, we have to be realistic. You have more and more nationalism around the world. Each country, including the US today, wants to be US first. If each country behaves like that, it will not be compatible with the global objective. Let's part the US for a moment. I'm pretty sure we're going to get back to that in a few moments' time. Oleg, I've only got the figure from last year, but you've reduced over at Rousseau your emissions by 54% since the mid-90s. You may have a slightly updated figure for us as well. And you plan to fully switch to hydro power by 2020. I mean, that is no mean feat as well. But your comments this time last year, renewable energy companies are going to die in the next two years with such low prices and without subsidies as well. Now, the prices slightly changed in the last year. We're pretty much double where we were on the price of oil, as Patrick was just saying. But the subsidy issue is still hanging out there. And whether it's a levy or a subsidy on the other side, we still don't have anything. Yes, I have the same view. Actually, I'm more convinced that renewable energy is just an excuse to use more coal in many countries. And this is kind of propaganda. But when you look at absolute numbers, you see there is more and more coal and there is more and more power generated by coal. And we can't get out of this circle. And I agree with Patrick what he said. We must deliver our shareholders what they want. They support us as long as we're not deviated from the main goal of our companies to produce a profit. And carbon price and concrete carbon price. And I read one analysis which said to equalize coal with, let's say, rational way to use it. It's $15 per ton of carbon. Because what we see in our neighborhood countries in Asia, they use a lot of coal, produce a lot of power, produce a lot of cement, steel, aluminum, glass, different type of material, overcapacity destroys the pricing. And there is no economic, let's say, way out of it. And they fight for every dollar to be more and more competitive. They find in a more and more way how to use it. But in reality, I don't agree that the coal is cheaper. If you have a proper standard for self-emission, if you have a proper standard how to control ash and all the remains, it's not expensive, but they can't afford it. And they couldn't control it. We understand this. It's understandable. That's why it's a very simple equation. You want to equalize coal with a rational economic model, $15. You want to put renewables equally with the rest of carbon. You need to put $35. If you want to implement a hydro project on a larger scale, which also will support renewables, and we know without quick capacity online, you couldn't do anything, it's a $50. And of course, massive coal consumption could be substituted on the nuclear. And it's another $75. This is a clear target, unless we will not do it. No one will change the strategy. There would be a lot of talks, a lot of discussion. I'm not to agree about, by the way, electric vehicles. There is a lot of problem with the power generation. But gas vehicles, as we see, could produce especially in emerging markets. Because you're worried about where the electricity is coming from. It's a good substitution for the oil and it's a clear direction. But as we can test, there is a lot of talk about nationalism. We can take an independent measure. There is nice countries in the middle of Indian Ocean Maldives. There's almost no coral left in two years, a live coral. Why? Because temperature up 5%. And we can debate in different numbers who will reduce so much or what would be sequence of events in the different countries. But this is clear. If we want to change planet, then we should go as we go now. If we want to keep it, we need to implement carbon price, let's say tomorrow. And maybe even a little bit more escalated to show a strong signal for people that it would be done. Okay. Well, I think everyone wants to get back in on this. And our panel will all respond to this as well. Because I think it was probably the most controversial thing we've heard today. Renewables are just an excuse to use more coal, says Oleg Deripaska. It's just propaganda as well. So I think everyone will want to come back on this one as well. But if you want to get involved, after I've gone around the panel, by all means, get your hand up and we'll get a microphone to you as well. But Christiane, if I can come to you first on this, I know Ignacio and Patrick and perhaps Newell will also come back on this as well. I lauded you at the start of this panel for getting the achievement, but you didn't get a carbon price in there. Despite the fact that just days before your meeting, I met with Patrick and Bob Dudley and Saudi Ramco and any and Statoil and a whole host of others who were saying, give us a carbon price. This will be a very important ingredient to COP 21. You didn't go there on that one, Christiane. Why not? Well, actually, that's not the only regret of the Paris Agreement, right? I think, you know, I harbor at least one other regret and that's the lack of the sign of urgency there. But the reason why those two things are not there and a carbon price is actually mentioned, but not imposed. And the reason why it was not imposed by the Paris Agreement is because there would not have been, we needed not just consensus, we needed unanimity. So it was a stepping stone to which COP? What's the next big COP? Where are we going to get that? Well, I'm not sure that that's the way we're going to go. What I see when I observe the world is I see a very much of a bottom-up approach to carbon pricing, where we already have 60 jurisdictions that have carbon pricing, two-thirds of them with some kind of trading scheme, one-third of them with a carbon tax. And China actually taking the lead already this year moving from their seven pilot market schemes to a national market that is going to put one, correct me if I'm wrong, one price of carbon in the entire China. That is going to have a huge impact across the world. But you see, we're going at it from a bottom-up perspective. And when you look at the way the Paris Agreement is actually built, there is also a certain consistency because the NDCs are also a bottom-up approach. So the trick here is how do you use a bottom-up approach that allows everybody to participate and to use the particularities of each jurisdiction for carbon pricing, but also obey and stay within planetary boundaries, which is the top-down? How do you balance those two? Achievable goals and relying on people to work from the bottom-up, rather than having a top-down mandate on this. Both, together. Okay, Ignacio. So I think perhaps I'm going to disagree on the thing that has been said. So I disagree. There's no obvious excuse for burning coal. Okay, I just want to correct. I said for some countries renewables, it's a great excuse. No, no, I think, I think, I think, no, no, I can already agree. Do not deviate from this. No, I think, I disagree because I've not seen the economics of investing in a new, new coal power plant with the CAPEX is three to four times more than the renewable one. What is the economics of that one? So when the existing coal power plant is true, so whatever is existing, in many cases we are comparing the cost of the price of renewable with the price generated in the existing fossil fuel power plant. But you have to build a new power plant with a fossil fuel, which is already for life, a variable cost of this fuel. And you compare that with something which only has already CAPEX, but the CAPEX of renewable has already diminished tremendously. Today, the investment of solar or photovoltaic of wind is almost three to four times less than the investment in a coal, clean coal power plant, let's say, a modern one. So without you can justify it. So the second thing that has been said, I would like to make this point on the table. The second thing, which I agree with you absolutely with all of you, is that we need to put the price to carbon. So if we are not putting price to carbon, so all what we are saying is nice to say, but it's going not to produce effect. And everybody is talking very positive about that, but few countries is already taking seriously that one. The third one is something you mentioned, which fully agree with renewable, is the need of storage. So by the storage there, there are technologies for that one. I think you are in hydro, we are in hydro. So if we transform all our hydro power plant irreversible, we can, you have hydro as well. So we can already storage all the energy which is produced for renewable. So we can transform our hydro power plant in both sides, to use as a generator, as it is today, or to use as a pump when there are excess to pumping up the top. So that can already produce massive storage. It's true the batteries, I spent 70 years of my life in batteries. So I think your company now I was already was my competitor in the past. And I think batteries, they will have their role as well. It's got no form, massive. You have to have the role in certain places. Just a comment. Maybe I shouldn't surprise nobody, we know I have quite investments in Russia, but I agree with Oleg. Because what he said was exactly my worry today. It's not the next year. I think clearly, frankly, the more I observe the evolution, I was shocked when I went to Japan this year visiting the mid-term strategy and energy, less gas, more coal, and more solar. Less in Japan, which is a developed country. That's the reality of what is happening in this world today. So, and again, I would like just to make a second comment. Carbon pricing works. The UK, despite they vote for Brexit, which is a mistake, I've put in place a 20 pound per ton or 20 dollar per ton tax two years ago. In two years, the power plant system in UK shifted from coal to gas. We're close too already. In UK, it works. 20 dollar per ton. And I think my message here is that we should stop speaking about 100 dollar per ton. We're afraid everybody. We're afraid everybody. It would be a step by step. It's a serious matter. It's a pragmatic matter. Let's begin to put in place something which does not afraid the big consumers. Because you know, even in Europe, what is happening in Europe? Why don't we have 20 dollar per ton in Europe? Why? Because in Europe, you have some people who want to make manufacturing in chemistry, in refining, in aluminum, in steel, and they have a competition and they're afraid of 50 dollar per ton. We just kill them. 20 dollar per ton, we can make it. And then we will rebalance very quickly. The investors, we are in charge to make profits for the future. And with that, I can tell you it will help and it will give a strict, a very strong push to the energy world and the way we invest. We need a signal. And I will support Christina. She has done a lot of effort. We had a discussion together in New York before the discussion. I told her, I understand Karen Price is not possible there because everybody cannot agree and the status of development of all the countries is not the same. But you have to put the word, it's in 60 NDCs, national contributions. And what she has done, she has put a small center where we could connect, interconnect the value system, which would be very important. Because when it's a matter, we have to invest, well, it will be the most efficient. Is it in China? Is it in Africa? Is it in France? I'm not sure it's in France, by the way, for because we have nuclear. But okay, so I think things are there. Now it's a question of political willingness and that we engage really seriously. But the investors who are waiting for that and that is true that what China has done and will do will be, I fully agree, a big signal because then the argument from European and I would say American companies that we are not in the level playing thing will begin into diminishing. But the level playing thing is also a matter of important matter for all of us. No, Breckery, you've heard a lot around the table about the speed of transition, especially from Christiane about the desire for it. You've heard what Oleg has said about some countries are using renewables as an excuse. What could be the catalyst for China to move even quicker on its transition? And just as an anecdote, I'm wondering if this is part of it because I once actually just a week ago asked a China expert whose family live in China still. And I said, this Yuan decline, it must be on everyone's lips. Everyone must be talking about the decline of Yuan. And he said, no, you asked 10 people what they're talking about. They talk about air quality, nine out of 10 times. Is that part of the catalyst that can get China to move even quicker? As I mentioned before, we have five major development concepts or cornerstones. When we talk about clean energy, renewable energies could be used as an excuse of a continual use of coal generation. And as far as I understand, this could be because renewable energy is still seeing a more unstable grid, which means that when you have to distribute electricity over a long distance, you will have to use coal generated electricity. But as the technology advances, as the distribution technology is being resolved and as it matures, I think this question would gradually be resolved. So these are two different things. Over the past few years, we're seeing a higher percentage of renewable energy and China's energy mix. This is also a positive sign. But as the president has said, we have 1.4 billion people. We cannot rely on one source of energy. We have to diversify our portfolio. We have to use clean coal. We have to use renewable energy. And we'll have to scale it. Of course, safety efficiency in the development of nuclear energy is also very important. Hydro power is also an option for us. So a diversified energy portfolio and structure would ensure the security of power supply in China. Of course, to be able to solve the security of energy supply, we have to take a more realistic approach. Therefore, we will also have to enhance international cooperation in the energy field. We will also have to take into consideration of the circumstances, the reality in China and our society. We have to decide for ourselves the portfolio and the structure that would be the best for us. For example, in the utilization of coal as an energy source, I have already addressed that before. But since last year until this year, we said that we have established this concept of sustainable coal-generated electricity development. Last year, we have already canceled about 7.2 million kilowatts of coal-generated electricity. We are also suspending cancelling and delaying some coal-generated electricity projects because we believe that approach will create a larger market space for other types of sources of energy. We know that each country has different resources and is faced with different challenges, and we therefore may not come to the same conclusion that's perfectly understandable. I think when we talk about clean energy, when we talk about this transition, each country will need to take into consideration of its reality. Each region, each place would have to take its pragmatic approach. When it's looking to the future, we must keep in mind our promise and commitment to the international community and our commitment via the Paris Agreement to follow through on the roadmap of the laid out for us. That's the key. Point I wanted to raise next, and you said we need to enhance international cooperation. Each country must consider its own realities. There must be a degree of pragmatism as well. The United States could be at a crossroads, and of course, when President Xi and Mr Obama signed an agreement ahead of COP21, it was perhaps the catalyst for the latter. Three agreements, thank you. The energy transition is moving in one direction. I think everyone in this room thinks it is. Is it possible the energy transition could be scuppered, derailed, delayed by a new president in the United States? We are already a big president. We are in 24 states, and I think what we have seen since this election has already happened in very many states, they are announcing the renewable obligation to increase the commitment in terms of emission reduction. In terms of certain states like New York state and Massachusetts, they have already made plans to make already offshore wind farms, even if they are more expensive today, still there are no other sources. So I think the big companies in the United States, most of them are our customers, are already signing things, just moving in the direction I'm not seeing. Nevertheless, I have to say, it was a plan in terms of renewables. It was already approved by the American Parliament to diminish the subsidies from 2016 to 2020. So in 2020, the plan is there are not any tax credit allowances any longer. So I think that is in the plan. And even in these bases, the technologies are competing with one another one. I'm not seeing my colleagues, American colleagues, to build today new coal power plant just to follow the instruction of whatever. I'm not seeing that one. I mean frankly, the energy mix of the U.S., the first driver of the change has been the gas. Because when we discovered gas share, it has been a huge revolution. And I strongly believe that if President Obama managed to change Washington policy, it's because they just looked at what was the reality of the energy mix change. So gas at $3 per million BTU is more competing in that coal. I know that Mr. Strump, and then wants to stop forbidding to open new coal mines, but will we open a new coal mine in the U.S.? Because these are 10, 20, 30-year projects and it's a four-year presidency. 20, 30-year project and because you have a change of policy for four or five years, and you have a competition from gas and tomorrow from renewable, I think no. I think this is true. There will be less regulation. Okay. But again, the fundamentals, I strongly believe, ecology progress because of economy. Because if the economic drivers are there, people will invest in the right direction. And today, gas is more efficient than coal in the U.S., so that's the reality of the mix. And okay, maybe you make politics. You say to people in some states, coal states, I will open new mines. I'm just looking to see who will invest in new mines in the U.S. So I think we should, again, look to what is pragmatic. And this is a lot of money, billions of dollars which are invested. And I trust the people that they will not just make short-termism because there is a change of affirmation. And I strongly believe that, again, I don't believe at all about the Trump administration. We went out of the climate treaty. It's a fundamental treaty. And so let's be, let's look to what the players will do. Oleg, do you believe that? You believe the leadership from the U.S. and China is going to be one player of them too now? We believe that China will go in the right direction, but it's difficult for them to understand. In the U.S., yes, there is a challenge. But I tend to believe if they will do not just great but smarter in other countries, they will use this benchmark, because I agree with Patrick Seck, because per economic value of their product, they spent almost three times less in our emission than anyone in the world. And if they would put in trade agreements, this benchmark, and if they will demand that the rest of the country who export their product in the United States will need to face the same benchmark, if not then tariffs will be deviated based on escalation and on the programs. Then I think they will create this enforcement mechanism to Paris Agreement, because at this moment there is either a carbon price in 15 years, which realistically, from now, or American trade policy, which adjust tariffs based on carbon footprint in the products, import on the territory. Cristiana, do you have any concerns about the U.S. pulling out of the treaty? I do, but not for the world. You have concerns for the U.S.? The U.S., yes. And let me say my concerns are actually around two things. I do have an international concern because, for sure, the public funding of the United States, over which the executive has quite a bit of influence, will dry up for climate both internally and externally and internationally. The public funding, okay? And that, I believe, is not going to have terrible influence internally in the United States, but it will put sand into the cogwheels of international diplomacy around climate change. And so that is going to be something that will have to be handled. However, having said that, we all know that public funding going into climate change, anyway, is only the tail that wags the dog. The dog is about trillions of dollars. It's not about millions or billions of dollars, right? So it is about the private capital shift, which, you know, is represented here. That's very interesting. We've had another debate yesterday, lunchtime, where I think the onus was on actually government taking the lead, rather than being the tail that's wagging the dog. On finance? On energy. On pushing forward. Government definitely takes the lead with policy, right, because the incentives and the direction has to be there, but certainly not with public finance. That is, you know, I mean, that is a political signal that is very, very important, in particular from the perspective of developing countries. And China is the first one to remind us all, you know, that the financial commitment of the developed world is a very, very important political commitment. It is not what is going to move the needle. So that is one concern. The other concern is, you know, for the U.S. economy, because the fact is, you know, we see the evidence that everyone else continues to move forward, and everyone else, present company included, is actually pulling the future into the present. And by the United States, should they choose, and it's not at all, you know, for sure that what is said is what is done, but should they choose to say what they're doing, they would actually be pulling the present into the past. And that's actually not a very good must-have to be taking when, despite, you know, what you say about globalization, you do compete in the global marketplace. And so if your technologies stay with technologies that are present today, or in fact even move back, what is going to happen with the competitive of those technologies in the international market, when you want to be able to use the international market to sell your products and your goods, and you can't stay just within the boundaries of your own country. So it just doesn't make too much sense for the economy of the United States. Would anyone like to get involved? Because I'm going to have a last round of questions in a moment, but if anyone would like to ask questions to this fantastic panel, by all means do. There's a gentleman behind me, and there's a gentleman over there as well. So let's start off over here, then we'll get to you later, sir. Yes, my name is Johan Arios. I am a little bit flabbergasted, because going to one point you made Patrick, which is efficiency, but no one has talked about the lowest hanging fruit, which is rainforest. And not much was done about it in Copenhagen, but a little bit. But what happened in Paris? And isn't that something we should address? Because that would bring the $20 down to $10 in a heartbeat. Who likes to respond to that? Cristiana? I'll respond to that. I would add only Russian forests as well. It's not just rainforest. Take Russian forests. Boreal forests as well. Yes. All forests. I would agree that that part, which is about one quarter of the issue that we're looking at, both one quarter of the problem, but also one quarter of the solution might be very, very important. And that is why the text has written such that we are heading for a balance between emissions and absorptions, because it is just as important, and here we're talking about reducing emissions, but it is equally important to increase the natural absorption of the planet. So that's why the text is written that way. But actually, yes, there was a huge amount done on what we call Red Plus, sorry to throw a lingo on you, but reduction of emissions of deforestation was actually a very, very important part of the component that led to the Paris Agreement. And we would not have had a Paris Agreement had that not already been put in place. So let me just say, the international structure and the regulation to deal with, in particular with deforestation is in place. What we need now is actually the implementation. Did you want to comment on the Russian situation? I mean, a large part of that is capacity building. Yes. And the framework for that was actually put in place in the lead up to Copenhagen with Red and then enhanced by Red Plus. And if we look at the cost, if we take the carbon cost, if we can save rainforest, it's at the $5 level. I don't think it's changed very much. Yep. And I actually did the review, which Red was based on back in 2007, if you may. But what is disappointing is that the capacity building initiatives, which were supposed to be funded through World Bank initiatives, are still incipient. Are doing nothing. No, they're doing nothing, but they're insufficient. I remember the Congo Basin fund has not thrown any funds whatsoever towards them. Thank you very much indeed. Let's get one very quick question from you, Fakid. Yeah. It's not a question. It's an observation. I come from India and had a big oil and gas company there. So a reference was made to India that India is not independent. So I thought that I would give some observations from India. Very good. Made one quick observation. If we could, your key observation. We're running out of time, sir. Yes, yeah. So we have a big economy, 1.2 billion people. Our energy consumption is one-third of global average. So we have to cover a lot to come to the thing. China is already, I mean, just about global average. So, but despite that difficulty, I mean, like China, we have to have a portfolio of energy mix. But and coal would be dominant, but still, I mean, on clean energy, we are fully committed on Paris Convention. By 2022, we would produce 175 gigawatt of clean energy. That's the aim, I mean, which the government has put for itself. 100 would come from solar. 60 will come from wind and so on. And our oil and gas companies themselves, I mean, my own company, we are diversifying. We are diversifying into solar, wind, and even solar storage. I mean, we are doing. I think it's very important we get that contribution from the world's largest democracy as well. So thank you very much. Yes. I'm going to come round with one more question for the panel. Oleg, you want to come in to you? Just on the forest. Yes. Funding is very important. No funds, no program. And taxes or carbon price could be a good source for this funding and it should be connected. The Total Foundation, we invest in forests because we are strong in Africa and we have decided to put millions of dollars on forests from next year. Okay, right. The biggest barrier or the most exciting part of the energy transition? I'm going to go around. You can pick. And it's literally got about 20 seconds each. So what is the most exciting thing about the transition or the biggest roadblock you see? Patrick? CO2 pricing, R&D in CCUS. And a real collective approach beyond what has been done by the Paris Treaty. Ignacio. So a clear decision on the countries to move toward a cleaner energy. So not continuing just subsidizing those things which has not already the future. So to use the resources to invest in the different type of sources of energy, not continue trying to keep and maintain the existing one just because there are no other social issues around. Thank you. Oleg. New technology for sure. We need to develop in a low cost in our application batteries, definitely nuclear. Of course, carbon prices as soon as better. And I think we need to change consumption pattern since I don't believe that we're already late in the strain and we have a problem which will mass in the near future. We need to think how we can change consumption part because consumption pattern push country to develop this old energy. And this is something which could be resinked by NGO, not to pushing just on industry, on some other. But consumption pattern with all ways to elimination must be addressed. And carbon pricing as soon as possible. New bakery. First of all, I think the government's attitude is essential. And secondly, concrete measures to achieve goals. And also an important factor is that we should focus on technological progress to reduce costs. The previous speakers have already mentioned that not only we have to be clean, things also have to be done in an economical way. If we can lower the costs, then there will be a bright future for clean energy. Thank you. And Kristiana, we've already heard one of the things you really want and that is speed of transition. What do you want to add to that? You know, one thing that is very exciting to me is the possibility of moving beyond our mental local maxima in the mathematical sense, right? And the local maxima in the sense that we have locked ourselves into thinking that we're making a maximum effort but local because it's within the range of what is visible to us right now. And the possibilities, the fact is that the world is expecting more from us. And I think that everyone is going to surprise themselves and herself and himself by actually being able to break beyond that. And I think that it has to do with collaboration in particular, collaboration across all kinds of boundaries that is going to make many, many things possible that are currently not visibly possible. It's a great note to end it on. And just to add, this is a great note to end it on. So we have organized a collaboration. Yesterday I was in nitrogen council with over 13 CEOs and today with eight CEOs all in gas companies speaking during one hour and a half of climate change. So this is also the contribution that Davos can bring to this climate change issue. And thank you to the web. Fabulous. Nurbekri, Kristiana Figueres, Oleg Deripaska, Patrick Puyone and Ignacio Sanchez-Gallant. Thank you very much indeed. And thank you very much indeed, everyone, for attending.