 Hello everyone and great to be here and I think I really want think about with a huge thank you to, Johnty and all the support, and to everyone just because emf is just fantastic place to be. So I just start there. Also going to start with some stories. This poster. It was taken, a photograph here. There is no photo shop involved. A lathown influences of a friend of mine called Chris Wιοanwchaft I'w'r ddiogel wedi'u trofod o'r llyw'r newydd, iawn o ddofod o isborgs bydd y eternig dros ffordd yw'r blwysgrif hefyd. Mae hynny'n ames yn dysw i gael'r cynhyrchu o'r bwysig. Gynhyrchu hwnng i'r corffon o'r newydd, y gallwn yn ynion i ddefnyddio'r llydy ddechydig hynny. Felly, mae'r angen i'r meddyl, gan heddiw y dyfod am amser o gweithio, ddyn ni'n gwybod yn gweithio am lawer isiau ar gyfer gweithio ac wedi gwasanaeth tusiaeth ar gyfer gwan, ar gweithio y Twngr, a wedi eu hwnnw'r aelodau hyn. Dwi'n fNOedd y ddadffod ag cyfnodydd iaith argymde SDGN, a felly sefydlu y ddal, yn gallu gwneud hynna a'r gwrth o'n ddwy'n unig i'w ddyn ni wedi bwysig i gael y ddylch. Here we are again, so what's different from when I started on this near on 20 years ago is the date is just as much of a mess as it was back then. Most people are still working on spreadsheets and it's not a great starting point. Ond we have got some things that are different, and I think when we look at what is the role of the hacker community and what does hacking mean in this context. I think it's broader than just tech hacking, although we need developers in the mix here. We need people who are good at social hacking, good at financial hacking, as in creating different types of finance and hacking policy. Actually working at how we can rewrite things to be more effective. On that journey over the years, I've got more involved sitting in between bits of government, bays, off-gem, the energy regulator, working with the financial conduct authority, the pensions regulator, the Bank of England, those kinds of people, through to BlackRock. I've got all the money sitting in these rooms and there's people who are in control basically of trillions of dollars of finance. They're all asking the same question. I think one of the things that is materially different is that the people in those rooms are genuinely trying to find a way forward, but I'm going to talk to some of those challenges. So today's talks mostly about pointers and ideas and things you can do to get more informed about where the levers of change are around climate. This needs everyone, but I want to start off with just some straightforward things that everybody can do, and I call this, there was a friend of mine many years ago said a thing called do the green thing. Actually I think here there's a framing of do the dull thing. A lot of this is about plumbing and looking at the financial ecosystem in which we exist and saying, what can we do to affect where the money flows? Because that's going to dictate how we invest and what the carbon footprint of everything is. Just to put a frame around this, the organisations that are able to think for more than a few years, even into the decades, are quite narrow in their scope. Pension funds and insurance companies are among the small number of groups that have to think on a timescale of decades. And when you think we've got a legally binding target now in the UK and other countries around the world, to hit net zero by 2050, actually most of that footprint is going to be baked in in the next decade, in fact in this decade. Because all of the infrastructure, the power systems, the transport systems, the water systems, agriculture, et cetera, that we embed tend to last for decades. So we've got to do something now to redirect that capital flow. So I'm going to flip here between money, tech data as we go through this, but three straightforward actions you can do is call up your bank or your insurer, or if you've got pension, call up your pension provider and ask them what are their net zero commitments, right? And what do they actually mean by them? You'll see a lot of very, if you go to the kind of corporate websites, you'll see lots of PDF files, lots of pretty good images in them. But there's very little in the way of tangible commitments to this amount of reduction by this date. Or yes, we're heading towards net zero by 2050 as a general sort of statement, as a target, but the roadmap and the plan of how to get there is less clear. And that's because we don't know. So it's not necessarily trying to hide anything. It's like it's really actually quite difficult. But what we need to be asking is how are they going to demonstrate those measures? How are they going to measure their progress and what does success look like? And then a really provocative question is how is the chief executives pay and the boards and the senior executive teams pay linked to hitting those targets? Now, these are quite, you know, these are all about by creating the right incentives. If we have a million people calling up a pension provider and saying we want to know these things, they're going to really pay attention. And I want to also emphasise you should be asking this question of your own organisations. Go to your CFO, go to your finance team, go to your marketing team and say, what do you really think? Take them out for a beer, go out for a cup of coffee and say, what's really going on here? Do we believe our own rhetoric here? Are we actually doing something material? And are we going to deliver net zero or are we just heading towards a lower carbon future? Because that's quite a different thing. I think we're well on track to being lower carbon that doesn't actually solve the problem. And there's a great clip, which I strongly recommend to you going to look up from the two Ronnies. As you can tell from the screenshot here, it's a very old clip. But one of my reflections here is that in talking to everybody, and I feel like I've really been through the whole system, you talk to people really low down in an organisation, they desperately want to do something about climate change. Now, whether their sense of agency is introducing recycling or helping to get renewable energy on board, there's still a sense of frustration. Oh, well, it's my boss that is the issue. So you're going to talk to them and they say, well, it's not really me, it's a senior management. Senior management say, oh, it's not really us. It's up to the chief executive or the C-suite. And you go to the C-suite and the chief executive. Well, it's actually up to the board if we don't get the board on to make the decision here. And the board then say, well, it's the shareholders. It's the pension funds. And then the pension funds say, well, we're regulated to make sure that the people in the organisation have a pension. So we've got to take a really high risk analysis here of where do we invest? And if you look back over the last 100 years, very simple equation, which is typically done on spreadsheets, the returns from oil and gas are more predictable than the returns from solar and renewables. Just because there's more data. So there's a loop. So you're right back at the beginning of that journey. So we all need to individually say, we give you permission to these pension funds and so on to say, we want to see these changes. We want you to invest differently. Yes, we know there's risk associated with that. But linked with that, we also need to change the regulation because I was sitting down with a number of the banks. They say, well, we're regulated. We're not allowed to take risk. If we take too much risk and people can prove it, we get fired or we get fined or in some cases we go to jail. So there is a huge amount of fiduciary legal responsibility in these organisations to make sure that everything stays stable. And the challenge there is when you start looking at the systems risks that we're facing, it's massive. So here it's not a technology problem. It's more of a social problem about our sense of individual agency in the mix. So next time you think, and what can I do? Yes, do the solar panel thing. Do the renewable energy. Do all of those things. But also call up the people who control your money. Because they're the ones making those high level decisions. And this is a description of our economy. It's quite straightforward. We only back things where the line goes up. Right? This is still true. We don't like lines that go down. I don't know if it's really dumbing it down, but that's been my experience. Unless you can show a line going up, we don't get the engagement. Because economists don't like to see efficiency. Right? We want to see growth. We're in a growth economy. Now, we might be able to refactor capitalism, but we're not going to do it in the next eight years. So we need to find out how other ways of influencing the system. But we also need to take in mind into perspective here that we have got a situation where we're doing the same thing over and over again. And that is kind of the definition of insanity. And at the same time, things are as simple as they're going to be. Everything from today forward, and this is always true, from today forward, it's only going to get more complex. You know, this time last year we were wrestling with COVID. We wouldn't have necessarily predicted the war in Ukraine. So all of these things create multiple factors, which when you're already in a stress situation, which the financial systems, our economies, our societies already are, trying to take on board these additional things just makes things more and more complicated. So we now have to try and start thinking differently about how we're going to imagine the future. Now, there are changes. So at COP last year, the climate conference, the various groups announced they're going to follow a thing called TCFDs, climate-related financial disclosures. Most large companies, your pension funds are now mandatory required to publish a report that says what their climate risks are. And I'm going to come on to that a little bit more in a moment. But fundamentally, how finance uses the data, you've got this really interesting kind of mix of quantitative information and qualitative information. And there's a lot of things under the hood of that. And what I wanted to drill into a little bit today is the difference between our financial economy and the real economy. And that language tells you a lot of things that are fairly self-evident. But I think this is one of the learnings that I'd bring today is that our financial economy really looks at financial variables. So this is things like your hedge funds, share prices, interest rates, and they're all geared to line grows up. And then underneath that, you've got the real economy, which is the non-financial elements of our economy, which are things that we produce and the flow of goods and things like that. So those two things are now having to come together in ways that they haven't really had to before. Now, I'm going to just pause there and come back into what's at stake here. You know, when we think about risk, and this is where companies and our economy isn't really geared up to thinking on these time frames because they're looking at next quarter's results or the next two years or the next three years rather than the next 10, 20, 30 years. But we are looking at what is at stake in this century, so in the lifetime of some of the people in this room. And the scientific community here is incredible. There's tens of thousands of people working on the actual climate science, working on what are the implications. But science really struggles to communicate to finance and to politics in a way that is meaningful and has traction. And the language of the IPCC reports, the international group that looks at climate, has got more and more blunt over the years. Basically, they've gone from like, oh, there's a significant risk or it's unequivocal. You know, when a scientist says something is 70% likely, they mean this is going to happen, but they tend not to stand on the table and sort of wave flags. If you say 70% likely to a politician, they go, oh, it's 50-50 then. Or it's probably 40-60 in my favour. Or something like that. There's a real translation gap, but the science here is really quite unequivocal, which we've heard for ages. And you can see that when we have stresses on our systems, so this dip here at the top right of our emissions over time, the dip there was COVID. So COVID did actually stop us doing this. It radically reduced our consumption and our emissions, but not as much as we might have expected. In fact, that also played out over different industries and sectors in different ways. You can see a massive dip there in the ground surface transport, aviation, and so on, residential went up a bit, of course. And you can see these differences over time through what's called extreme confinement at home. So stop doing things. Now, this is something to learn from. We need to stop doing things, as well as investing into renewables and all the other PCs. There's a billion cars on the road worldwide right now. If we're going to switch them all of them to EVs, we're actually going to create a huge footprint just from the creation of the vehicles. Never mind the creation of everything else. So we have to work out how we're going to do mobility differently and so on, because the curve here needs to do this. Now, if you're in an economy where line goes up and the line going up in the economy generates emissions, even if you're switching huge amounts of capital, and you look at a dip like COVID and say, well, we've just bounced back to roughly where we were before. Something radical has to shift. So we have to start thinking about how do we make the line going up really deliver net zero? How can we refactor that? So there's a hack in there somewhere, a psychological hack, to have a line that somehow goes up that takes us to net zero. And it's not just investment in renewable energy. It's also some kind of form of efficiency and some form of reduction where actually the line is going down, but somehow it looks like it's going up. So I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. And so what we're looking at here is then how do we get data to help us with this journey? And I've heard over the years, many people come to me and say, we just need all the data sat in a room with many financial people representing probably an aggregate about 15 trillion's worth of assets worldwide. And they said, look, we just need all the data. I said, well, that's a really useless question. At which data do you need specifically? And they said, just all we need is all the industry data about infrastructure, so water, energy, agriculture. So we just need all the information about finance, all the information about policy, all the geospatial information, and all the climate data. So that's better than everything. At least we can start to chunk that up a little bit. And let's then pick it out by sector. And then how do we get this really economy piece, the actual production of things? So here we've got resources that get distributed and then they get used in making things. And then within a carbon world, they get quantified. There's a bunch of methodologies and models that are applied to those consumption pieces. They get put into carbon accounting packages and turn into reports, the kind of TCFD one that I mentioned earlier. Now those reports then also have lots of qualitative statements about the future. So organisations will say, we'll be net zero later. Trust us. And it's a bit like saying we're definitely going to be profitable in three years. We need to be able to hold people to count far better than we are at the moment. It is not a pleasant situation at the moment. Give you one example within the insurance sector. If you're going at the top level of these organisations, they'll also, yes, we've got a team working on climate change that are doing forward projections and using AI and machine learning and probably there's a blockchain somewhere in there as well. If you go in at the ground level, and I've done this more than once now, it was one national insurance company and I went and spoke to the intern and they said, yeah, I got emailed 15,000 spreadsheets a year from our customers. I copy and paste them into two black box softwares of service risk modelling tools. They spit out a number. We take the average. We adjust that based on last year's number and that's how your insurance premium gets set. Now, as you can tell from that, firstly, what on earth are you doing? Secondly, that's not incorporating at scale all of the future predictions because when you start factoring those in, it starts to really shake some of the foundations of what the economy should be looking like in the future. And that's why it's hard. It's really difficult for organisations to engage with this because it really introduces fairly systemic different types of risk. It's also really difficult for countries to then work with each other because you say, well, if you keep going this way, our country is going to flood. So one of the outcomes that's quite likely there's plenty of evidence pointing in this direction that Florida, for example, might be one of the first areas that just becomes goes underwater because the ground in a lot of Florida is porous. So you can't even build a levee. It just comes up through the ground. But there's still property development happening on the coast of Florida. It's a bit crazy. But the second, the last insurance company pulls out of Florida, the housing market will collapse and then you'll see a systemic economic collapse in that area. So why we're looking at finance and looking at these kind of financial instruments is because they have to care first. The insurance companies have to care first because they're carrying a lot of the risk. The pension companies have to care first because they have to protect an investment that lasts decades. And at the moment when you join these things up, these reports are used by ratings agencies. They're used by investors. They're used by fund managers in the market. And then auditors, at the moment auditors around the world are hiring people with what's called ESG skills, environment science and governance skills. So much so they're actually creating a bit of a vacuum in the market. They're just hoovering these people up because everybody knows that they're going to have to audit these environmental reports but they're massively complex. It's right down to how much steel was consumed in a particular project, what was the carbon intensity at the time of use and so on. So somehow we need to digitise this entire system. But digitising this entire system isn't a technology problem per se. It is a little bit because you've got one, some person who's got 15,000 spreadsheets. But that's a relatively solvable problem compared with the policy instruments you need to be in place to make all this data flow. And so part of the work we're doing at Icebreaker One has been to try and take the principles of open banking and some of the work we've done at the Open Data Institute forward into policy instruments or into things that could be used in procurement or other financial contexts to help this data flow and to almost mandate it. We'd love investors to mandate the data flow. Through this system so they can have confidence in what they're investing in. Excuse me. So just bring that back. So what can we do, right? So we've got this something we've all got a role to play. We're not powerless in the mix. So I want to come back to these kind of asks here which we touched on at the beginning. Why would we want to ask these questions? Well, because the investors, the pension funds in particular need to know from their stakeholders which are us, right? They need to know that this is what we want and we need to be able to articulate the questions to them in a way that is meaningful and creates the right incentives. They also need to have measurable plans and while some are getting there there is a vast amount of work to be done. And the UK is actually one of the leaders in this field. The other thing that's happening is regulation is coming. So across the EU the climate reporting is now mandatory for all large funds effect. So there's about 50,000 companies that are affected. In the US the regulator, the SEC is now mandating the reporting of climate risk. However, that's at the end of the process. So we've now got to say, well, if you're reporting what the risk is what are you going to do about it? And there's a world of pain ahead there. And a lot of the capital is frozen because the investors are terrified of greenwash. It's not just, we all hate greenwash but also do they. They don't, because they don't want to be on the front page of the news with the latest greenwash thing. Also for their own shareholders. For their own investors. They need to make sure that they're investing in the right thing but they don't necessarily have the evidence and they can't necessarily prove what the outcomes are. So there's a huge scope here for innovation and hacking at multiple levels of the system. How can we prove that this particular renewable technology is going to scale? If we can de-risk that, then it will have a huge amount of investment thrown at it. I think the latest number I've heard actually when I set up Icebreaker I set as a target of trying to influence $3.6 trillion per annum of investment. It sounded a bit, well it is a bit ludicrous but the reason for picking that number is that's roughly how much we spend on infrastructure globally per annum and it all needs to be demonstrably net zero. The latest numbers coming out of McKinsey is probably three or four times that in terms of the amount of investment it's going to take to get the whole world to get to net zero. So there's a massive amount I think we can do and this is really call to action for all open communities developing open source solutions developing social solutions developing financial instruments. You know if you want to go learn about how does an insurance policy work or how does an investment product work we've just been 18 months working with Lloyds and Aeon and people like that. What is a climate product anyway? All of that's on our websites all creative commons licensed and for those working on things like policy whether it's internally within a company or working with local government or working with national government there's a huge amount to be inserted in there as well. And if you're working inside an organisation just keep asking the question just keep socialising these questions. This is the most powerful thing we can do as a community is just the more we ask the questions the more people will feel that they've got permission to step into that space and take more risks and that will give them confidence to take those risks. So I'm going to finish there thank you we've got posters here and stickers if you want and this presentation is at the link at the top right of the screen. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Gavin.