 All right. Hello. I think we are online and the participants are starting to come in. Okay, we'll start very shortly. Just allowing a little bit of time for everyone to get in on this very interesting day and report we have for you. So, welcome everyone. Today, the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network, the UN SDSN and Enel Foundation, are presenting their report on how to effectively implement the European Green Deal and how to do so in consistency with the SDSGs, the sustainable development goals. It's going to be a very interesting report. We have Professor Jeffrey Sachs with us. We have Simone Mori and we will have Camila Bausch who will be discussing today's topic. And we will also be showcasing it at one point an example from the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan in order to demonstrate this national effort that's working to align the long term planning with the SDSGs. And I find that particularly interesting because it will allow us to see in concrete how that might work. And there's just so much to discuss today. The ambitions are huge. As we know we are living in an urgent climate and environmental crisis, and we need to pursue sustainability as best we can. We need to respect the leave no one behind principle. So the European Green New Deal needs to be implemented according to as this report will show a holistic across sectoral approach. And adopting the six transformations approach which we will discuss later with Professor Sachs developed by Professor Jeffrey Sachs and others to provide a model for policymakers to address issues like this and very, very complex situations like the one. We are facing. So I'm really, really very pleased to be here today and to be able to listen to what the speakers have to say. So very quickly, a few things. So we're starting now we'll end about 430. If people who are coming in I see the participants numbers are rising you can feel free to write questions in the chat. Please use the Q&A chat we have two chats that you will see on your monitors. So please use the Q&A chat for any questions you may have. And at the end, when everyone has had a chance to speak, we will be looking at the questions and doing a Q&A session. So without further ado, let me maybe briefly introduce the speakers. I'm sure you're all here because you know who is speaking and what we're discussing but Professor Jeffrey Sachs obviously well known professor author, advisor to governments around the world and obviously to the United Nations. He leads global efforts for sustainable development for climate safety and is a strong, strong supporter of the Green New Deal. And in his bio it says and Medicare for all so he's an expert on public health and epidemics and has advised the World Health Organization during the past 20 years and much, much more. But I mean this is just a taste of his bio. We will also be speaking to Simone Mori who is annual groups head of Europe and he's been since 2018. Prior to that he covered several managerial positions within the group, responsibility at group level for regulation for anti trust for environmental and climate policies. And from 2014, he has represented annals interest with regards to the European Union. So, a perfect profile, obviously for what we are discussing today. And last but not least obviously we have Dr. Kamila Bausch. She is scientific and executive director of the College Ecological Institute for main fields of research are environmental climate and energy policy. Dr. Bausch was a longstanding part of the German delegation to the UN climate negotiations so that's particularly interesting for us. Her experience in that field, and she has been active in the introduction reform of the emissions trading system in Germany, which which is a very interesting system I've been writing about it in the past, and that's fascinating. And as well as ongoing developments of energy law so Dr. Bausch serves as co chair of the T20 task force on climate change sustainable energy and environment for the Italian G20 presidency which has just, it has just ended this year Italy has had the G20 presidency this year. So, there you have it. So, I would begin at this point with Simone Mori, who tell us a little bit more about this report that is being presented today, who can sort of explain how it has evolved how climate policy has evolved in the last decades how we come to the Green New Deal. And then I know he can also tell us a little bit more about the Italian example which I was mentioning before. So, thank you for being with us and the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you very much is an honor to be here with you today. Thank you very much for training foundation for inviting me to present an earlier discussion. Let's start from from from Glasgow. Probably, some of you have spent a couple of days in Glasgow, and being there I came to my mind. The 2009 cop in Copenhagen for several reasons not only for the, let's say, some logistical difficulties which was quite evident in this case but also because of looking at the cop from European ice. There was a very strong similarity. In 2009 Europe came to Copenhagen, just having closed the 2020 package. And the idea at that time was, well, let's negotiate, try starting from a point of the same. So, the idea was leading by example, you know, we are, we already define our own plan. We believe that you want to be the leaders, the moral leaders of the, on this fight, and the rest of the world will follow. Unfortunately, in Copenhagen, the rest of the world didn't follow. And the cop was a quite an evident failure. This was the judgment of the analyst. So looking at Glasgow, there is a similar similarity. Europe came with the fit for 55, not close, but very well structured. And then the idea is, well, we came with our homework done. We want to be in some way the example for the rest of the world. But I think that the similarity stops here. And there are very big differences, not only because in Copenhagen was knowing and thanks to God that this in Glasgow was not storing for you. So while queuing outside, you don't have, you didn't need to say under those notes. But because Europe came with a very strong position, based on the fact that the stratification policies that were put in place starting from 2008 2009, then modified to the energy union approach. And to be more tighter, closer, more coherent. The clean energy package accelerating in Samaria starting to define targets for 2013. The European Green Deal, so the new parliament for the lion commission instead of articulating elaborating on what the previous commission did. And the new plans and new plan which is even accelerated after a strong and sound cost benefit analysis demonstrating quite clearly that if you do the job in the proper way. The achievement of European targets will be good, not only for the climate, but also for European economy and people. And also because Europe put in place some specific tool aimed at being not only the same moral leader in this process but also technological leader. Also with some defensive tool, which makes some difference. I believe that it's very important to consider a couple of points which are an inherent part of the of the package that you appear. Institutions proposed. Let's start from the concept of just transition just until the decision is a concept that Carlos Papas here with us and it started to discuss about just transition several years ago probably before the definition became in some way the idea that you know that to get the job done. You must have with you all the society. You might not have winners and losers. You have to push in order to enforce the winner. You have to be aware of the needed transition. Because the transition will be difficult in some regional continent in some specific segment of the chain and then we have to take care of it. We may not, you know, we may not admit that the achievement of this target may be, I mean, could happen while I'm, I'm publishing a part of those. Introducing specific tools in order to support this transition is very, very was a very, very important part of of European policies and I believe that this will succeed because the tools that are under construction are very, very relevant and punchy at every second point, we may not construct a decarbonize European economy and society just by importing technology produced as well. You know, of course, the debate in some way is a has to take into consideration the experience we had in the past for some specific part of renewable value chain, especially the solar panel which became quite certainly a commodity and largely important. This is not the destiny of our continent. We are starting to produce and top end high tech, for example, solar panels and we may produce this in Europe while there is a high added value, we may rain show a part of the production that apparently was exported. But there is not only this, but the alliance, a good example of European cooperation in order to put in place to reinforce the European manufacturing in this segment. There are several, quite a large number of new large factories and bigger factories, which are under construction around Europe, in different countries, Europe may play a big role in that. We don't have to take for granted that this kind of technology should be left to order countries and other geographies. This is not reality. The green hydrogen is another important step. The green hydrogen, which is the solution for deploying the decarbonization is so called health a big sector relies on the technology of the devices, which is still quite much technology may play a big role and again the kind of an alliance is working out also in order to incorporate this kind of technologies into the European segment. So, on my side, you will feel a lot of optimism, but we are very much for the further of this European European measures, also because as you know this was the core of your question about the Italian recovery plan because this is having consequences on the decision that member states are making. And if you look at the European Italian plan, but it's not only the Italian one, we know what the other plans produce in other countries where we are present, that's Spain, that's Greece. They are very much in line with what Europe is trying to do. Electrification, which, of course, which is the best and fastest way to bring the decarbonize electricity to the final users in order to accelerate the decarbonization of the final demand energy demand and also in order to engage all the population because all the cities and all the society is a big project and the effort so without going into the details on the topics on the very topics of the planet. I believe that what is important, what we see now that in many regions of Europe, and of course in Italy, for sure, there is a very strong coherence between what developments are putting as a priorities in the plan and what Europe is defining in terms of a ground vision for the 2030 and then 40,000 50 for the carbon net zero carbon neutrality vision. That's reason why we are pretty sure that this will work. There is a big problem of execution. We are aware of that, which is an Italian problem, which is an European problem, permitting retake bureaucracy administrative constraints, fragmentation is still very present is still a problem. So we are pretty sure that being the plan homogeneous and ambitious, but realistic, and being the barriers, the constraints, very well identified. Well, I feel myself on the side of the optimist we may deliver we could deliver and it's very good to deliver because this is going to be good for the planet for the environment also for our economy and our citizens thank you very much for your attention. Thank you very much for presenting this, this, this part of the of the very important report between the the partnership that that generated this report between the UN SDSN and the end of foundation I see that the professor sucks is connected so welcome Professor. Thank you very much. Sorry for the delay but it's a trapped in zoom world someplace else. No problem at all. We've just gone through as you as you know, the report. Simone more has taken us through a little bit of the development how we got there. The evolution, let's call it that way and then a little bit about the applying the six transformations framework to the Italian case but you know he didn't to the details as yet. I would like to to ask you about the six transformations obviously how to implement how to get to this, the green you deal through the six transformations if you could tell us about that part of the report. Thank you so much. Wonderful. Thank you very very much. Let me thank all of my colleagues and especially be an L foundation for the partnership on this and for all of the SDSN Europe which is working hard to support the European Green Deal. First, let me say the European Green Deal is the most comprehensive framework for sustainable development on the planet. So I greatly support and admire what the European Union is doing and what the European Commission is doing to promote the sustainable development goals the Paris agreement, and the conservation of biodiversity in a coherent and consistent manner. We can see from this work, it's complicated. The European Green Deal is not a simple document it doesn't lend itself to a sound bite. There is no 30 second elevator pitch of the European Green Deal. It is very intricate. It's got many moving parts as Simone was saying, and as we know, decarbonization change of land use, digitalization, research and development, circular economy, farm to fork. It's a lot. And it's good that it's a lot because the sustainable development agenda is really a complicated multi objective process, a very ambitious one, and much beyond normal governance. It's beyond normal governance because we're aiming not at one goal or one parameter. Economic growth or unemployment or inflation were aiming at a consistent set of solutions to massive environmental crises. We have a change loss of biodiversity mega pollution emerging diseases, widening social inequalities, widening crises of social trust as we've seen on the streets of Europe and the United States in recent days, where we are really in a fragile state of despair is even with regard to basic public health measures, and of course the desire for continued progress towards economic well being and convergence within Europe and across the world. And it's a little crazy that the SDGs have 159 targets and hundreds of indicators. And these are goals set for a decade from now or mid century in the case of decarbonization. And that's also very, very hard politically. It's hard to even to keep an attention span of society and politicians years ahead, much less to keep a consistent set of public policies. So that's why we at SDSN have been advocating the idea of six big transformations doesn't simplify it as much as I'd like but six big transformations to try to encapsulate what is this all about. And those six are mainly around education, and also the advanced skills for innovation as number one, health and well being, obviously very pertinent in the COVID era is number two. Energy and industrial transformation, that's both decarbonization and circular economy is number three. Sustainable land use and biodiversity and sustainable food systems in particular is number four sustainable urbanization as number five because we are still in a period of mass urbanization we're going to have mega cities in Asia and Africa, unlike European cities which developed over the course of 3000 years. Cities today have to develop in the course of 20 years and they have to get it right the first time or end up in massive crises of congestion pollution inequality and the like. That means a kind of urban design and planning and finance and construction in a very short period of time, fortunately Europe has less of that problem, because it has the most wondrous cities that have grown organically over 1000s of years. And so it's a matter of some updates for the, the new technologies but not fundamental new building of mega cities, and the sixth transformation is the digital transformation, which on the one side could change our lives for the better, enabling us to have better services, health, education, payments systems e commerce e governance, more leisure time. We have not. Well, all of us to some extent have traded online for our commutes during the coven period. A lot of that will remain that we will do more work from distance, more work in local neighborhoods more work from home, rather than automobile based commutes or anything in my mind. But we know that this digital transformation also will change jobs and eliminate a lot of jobs. It could potentially increase a lot of leisure but it won't necessarily because the impacts could be so unequal. It could lead to psychological addictions, manipulation, fake news. I'd say net net right now, it's a pretty close call. What's happening. We see a lot of social disarray and destruction around the social media. I don't know what to do, but I'm not prepared to enter the metaverse with Mark Zuckerberg. He seems a pretty unreliable guide to me in a pretty flaccid thinker that I'm not ready to trust either my future of my children's or my grandchildren's future to Zuckerberg's ideas. So, these are big challenges and big transformations. So the idea of our report today is to say great the European Green Deal is, is, is a fantastic framework. It harmonizes your maps into these six transformations, but we're also urging the European Commission to use the six transformations as an organizing principle, or some variant of it, to keep the big picture to help us keep track of what we're doing it's a pretty good fit. There's a pretty good coherence, but it's hard to implement anything that we're trying to do and so the six transformation framework is really an aid to implementation. It's to say think of the challenges in the following way. Think of these as transformations meaning 20 year changes of society not next month next year, not business cycle, but generational change. Think about the coherence of policy in that regard. Think about the financing. To my mind it is think about more Europe, not less Europe, because all of these ambitions whether it's a decarbonized energy system or a Mediterranean sea, which is ecologically protected, or whether it is a Europe that is vibrant and resilient commercially depends on regional cooperation regional scale budgets, EU wide budgeting which is why I'm a big fan of the European recovery and resilience facility. I'd like even more of that. So, Alessandra that's the basic idea of what we're after in this, and we see this as a basic guide post for future action, not as a moment of decision but as a framework that can help to guide and Europe's got it in the right steps. And now bolster this, make it work and then take it worldwide because every place in the world needs its own green deal with similar structures and we have to make it work in Europe because it's the place in the world both likely to succeed. It's making progress and the spirit of our report today is to make sure that that progress continues in a very strong and resilient way. Thank you. Thank you so much. Yes, definitely. We hope, and we hope it will be an example for for the rest of the world, hopefully. All right, well I will then I'd love to move on to Dr. Camila Bausch, who is scientific and executive director of the Ecologic Institute in Europe. Thank you for being with us. I think at this point I'll let you maybe comment what you've heard so far from your point of view, you know from your experience what we've heard. And also I guess what you're seeing you know from your point of view in your data and in your analysis. Thank you. Thank you very much, Alessandra and thank you Simone and Jeffrey for inviting me that's really an honor and a pleasure. And it's, it feels good to work in Europe right now because there is so much dynamic and so much to be done. So it's a good moment in time, while it's also a scary moment in time thinking of what is developing around us. Yes, Simone. Let me take a quick look back first Simone took the worst moment in international climate negotiations the 2009 Copenhagen summit. Let me look at 2015 quickly which was a highlight and a year of breakthroughs for multilateralism. Here, the agenda 2030 was agreed upon with the 17 sustainable development goals, and the Paris Agreement was adopted, was both in the same year and the world defined ultimate objectives for its collective efforts and overcame the former strict divide between developing developed countries. So basically, in 2015, we defined a common agenda for the world as a whole. However, we did that without a toolbox box to meet the challenges to achieve these objectives. So until today, we are working to define and pave the way towards the future we want to live in. And therefore it's actually quite decisive for societies to advance the thinking and the policies to achieve these objectives. So this is what the report also wants to contribute to. The report rightly points to transformations we need and how to make them successful and efficient and for this the report points to the need for policy coherence across sectors and branches of governments. So that's horizontal between levels of governments. So that's vertical and throughout time. And I just echo that this is correct that also shows how complex that is. So we basically need targets policies measures, good governance structures and anchors to guide us through times and let me mention here explicitly long term climate strategies, because they have not been explicitly but implicitly mentioned in the report and they are something lacking yet in the fit for 55 package of the European Union so it includes long the need for long term strategy so we can actually align our policies in a coherent way. And as has been mentioned, we are also in a process of learning because transformations are fundamental and they are a lot of experiences we did not have yet. So as we move along, we learn on a time frame. So basically monitoring and reviewing will be needed, and the report also highlights this. Now, why all of this holds true for all countries around the world, the report focuses on the EU, and specifically on energy and climate issues in particular, and provides a quite adequate description also of the status quo, and the complex landscape and economic developments. So let me look at that also for a moment. Over the past few years we have seen some fundamental developments which I think in 2015 barely anybody who interrelated game changers. The one is also a lot for underlying as a conservative president of the commission coming in, and announcing Green Deal as her core policy framework. So for the first time, an environmental issue, particularly climate change has become a focal point for all policymaking for the policy vision. As Jeffrey Sachs just said the grand vision. So this framework as it stands here, it's something unique and you wouldn't have seen that before. And it is an integrated systemic approach which shows it's rather complex because everything is interlinked but you have to break it down to not drown in complexity to have this back and forth, break it down and then link it back. So it's coherent and tangible and actionable. That is a big challenge here. The agenda of the European Green Deal is closely intertwined with the agenda, sorry, with the agenda 2030. Be it good health, and well being, be it clean water and sanitation, be it affordable and clean energy or climate change just to name a few. Actually the European Commission links 12 of the 17 SDGs directly to the European Green Deal. As the report just published today, mentioned the European Green Deal represents the first model framework for addressing multiple SDGs in a coherent manner. In a coherent strategy, sorry, that was a quote. And it mentions it is an all government approach. I want to say it's even in parts in all society approach and that links to what Simone has just said that all of society is needed and it's not only technology it's not on governance it's really these transformation needs societal backing that is also mentioned in the report. And the second game changer was the agreement to become carbon neutral by 2050 setting a date and not saying 80 to 95% but saying carbon neutral. Why is that such a game changer because before there was kind of a tug of war which part of industry could remain emitting. Others have to reduce now tug of war is over. Everybody has to be in that's the call of the day. So that is decisive. Nobody can escape the need to change. That was a game changer. So now with all of this on board, the report highlights some key opportunities, particularly related to the recovery package, but also some key challenges. The complex structures within the EU, the different views of member states they different starting points, the different structural challenges in the member states controversies, evolving over for example, the new EU taxonomy for sustainable action, including controversies over gas issues and nuclear issues. So we could add to these complex points mentioned in the report. Some things Jeffrey just mentioned in his introduction. So reforms of agricultural and transport policies, debates over future proof infrastructures sector coupling, or the extension of the industry. So, overall, there's a lot of promising approaches on the table already and quite a bit of challenges still to overcome. Now the report highlights then Italy. It is overall a positive assessment of the Italian case. The wealth of opportunities Italy has at its fingertips, I quote, Italy can leverage the abundance of renewable resources available, namely wind and solar, and with mostly mature technologies, and of course. So that links nicely to what Simone just said. I'm excited about the opportunities. And the report rightly says that Italy claims that 40% of the funds are dedicated to investments to combat climate change, but now to spill some water into the wine. This is of the green recovery tracker of the Italian case, which basically says there is a lack of appropriate support for crucial pillars of the energy transition, notably the expansion of renewable energy generation and direct use of electricity. And it warns from wrong lock ins and actually finds that, and I quote, Italy's recovery plan achieves a green spending share of 16%. Below the EU's 37% benchmark, and at the same time we find that is the report of the green recovery tracker, we find that 26%, that is 49.5 billion may have a positive or a negative impact on the green transition, depending on the implementation of the relevant measures. So here there is some need also for the scientific community to follow up to make sure that this, we don't know yet how it turns out turns out to be good and the right direction. And I assume I'm running out of time Alessandra or do I have two minutes. You certainly have two minutes, it's fine. Then let me turn to science because I was asked that before the event that I could mention some words on science here, science can make an important contribution in this context. I see four roles, a source of generating scientific knowledge and insights, a watchdog, a scientific advisor, and as a convener and actually as the SN plays a role in this. But let me add also some structural point I find not worthy for the scientific community. So science can create insights which become cornerstones in the political process, think about the intergovernmental panel on climate change and its impacts on the international climate negotiations. Second, scientists can become part of the policy process. Especially formally this has been quite trendy right now in Europe, considering the national climate laws where you have these experts commissions. And that is good. They have reviewing they are neutral they are outside of these policy realm but still inside. And that includes also monitoring and assessment as the report rightly points out. Now, thirdly, I think we have to engage into new forms of research in Germany we call it this transdisciplinary research for solutions that work in the real world in short term. And that means to integrate stakeholders and their implicit knowledge into the scientific process. And secondly, to dare to develop new scientific methods like real world laboratories and I like to actually test what we think about to advance more quickly and learn with each other. Last but not least, I want to say we have a responsibility we have a responsibility to contribute to creating knowledge systems for the change agents we want to see. Right now, for example, a farmer who wants to change to become more sustainable is challenged because he doesn't have a good go to point to understand what does it mean for the business model for the finance model what are the right technologies what are the right techniques. So we need for all this transformation and knowledge systems up to the task. So this. So this means we have a lot on the table, and we have a lot to do. So let's take it away and build the future we want to see. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, I think we can open our Q&A session and actually the timing is perfect because we have about 15 minutes. We won't be stingy with time so if anyone has extra questions. These do so are anyone who would like to can post questions in the Q&A I have some questions in the Q&A I have some questions in the chat. I have questions coming from various directions. So, here's one from the Q&A for you. Okay, let me just open it so really vendor branding I hope I pronounced that correctly. I fear not, but I apologize therefore. So he writes that you know he's concerned about implementation. He says 2015 is six years ago the improvement of SDGs is marginal one third of the time is gone, and the indices are getting worse and worse with global CO2 emissions continues the increasing. He's concerned, you know that you don't see real improvements each report predicts worse outcomes in the previous one and ends with however there is hope, because we are human I suppose and we hope. So here's for hope but what year do you think the data will give some substance to the hope do you see this data improving. You know, is it still early tell perhaps we can start maybe with actually with Camilla on this and maybe then go back to the others. It's wonderful to be asked about the data when being a lawyer. I love that. So let's see what I can say about the data. I think, being at this moment in time we can tell two stories we can tell the doomsday story. We have a lot of evidence to back that up about trends in in the energy sector about trends in the agricultural sector about emissions, and you do have the data to back that up. But you can also tell the other story, and you do have data to back that up about the future of renewables about the drop in cost about the drop in battery. And about the new exciting opportunities with green hydrogen thinking of technology or with respect and they also have data to back that up. Just go to the website of the arena. And so that's the International Renewable Energy Agency, and you have some policy commitments which you have not seen ever on the table. People complain about Russia wanting and China wanting to become carbon neutral only by 2016. I can understand that you're not happy about that, but then I would say, at least we have a pleasure on the table we didn't have that before and it was not very likely that we get one. So, or China pulling out of financing international coal. Of course you could ask them to stop financing also national coal. So I think we have room to tell both stories and how the tug of war actually ends will depend on how much dynamic we can create. And, as you say, we always end with hope and there is a quote attributed to Luther, so Martin Luther, so the German guy, not the American guy. And he said, if I would know that the world would go down tomorrow I would still plan an epitree. And this is what gets me going because I think that's the only solution we have. And I don't find it for me very productive to focus on the doomsday scenario. So, so I hope we work for the solutions and we'll be meeting again and then having even better data on the table. Okay, thank you. Well, I'll keep circling backward through our speakers so now to Professor sacks a bit of the same question, you know, are you concerned that we're not moving fast enough and then I'll add a bit of my own because I did have a question as a journalist. The costs, you know, I everywhere I go, there's talk about the cost the governments I've spoken to. Obviously when you speak to, for example, I'm in based in Italy. When you speak to Mediterranean countries the south part of the Mediterranean North Africa they say well look we have other issues to worry about this is not a priority. But even when I was in France recently, there was an issue with the costs. There's political tension there's an election coming up. So, two questions that one is. Okay, the question asked by in the Q&A you know, we're not seeing enough do you think we're not seeing results fast enough. And when will we see something and then the other question is this issue of the cost it's clearly slowing down. How worried are you about it. What can we do is there any way we can sort of overcome it. Especially in countries like like Europe where you think, you know we have enough money to do both. Perhaps to the main the main the main problem is not the costs, the costs of running a zero carbon energy system versus fossil fuel based system are pretty close. And analyses say that the renewable system will end up being net cheaper, not even a small more expensive, it's not the costs. It is a lot about the distributional consequences, and especially the interests of major fossil fuel producers. We were all fossil fuel using but not producing. So we were importing from outer space we would choose to import the solar rather than the fossil fuel. The problem is actually with the fossil fuel producers, because that's where the lags are taking place. Europe is in the lead in part because it has very little fossil fuel. It tends to get stymied. Think of Germany and coal. Well, okay, good. The coal commission said there'll be a phase out, but it was hard political work even for a very modest part of the German economy. Now, imagine if you're Saudi Arabia, or Russia, or Australia, I don't have sympathy for their position too much but I just have an understanding that we're up against mostly interests. We're not up against costs per se. We're also up against or complexity because an energy transformation is not a simple matter. It's about changing power generation and technologies that use energy such as electric vehicles rather than internal combustion engine or hydrogen based steel making. These are new technologies, actually, that are going to work, but they need development and improvement and their systems. So they are interconnected and they require changes of land use and other kinds of behaviors and so on. So part of the problem is the impact on political power on government finances on commercial interests. Part of the problem is the pure complexity of getting this done. A modest part is about costs. That's the exaggerated part by the vested interests. I do want to say I agree with everything Camila said except why pick on China, for example, why isn't your normal reaction about the United States which is much, much worse in behavior than China. The United States has no policies agreed by the US Congress. The US admits much more fossil fuel. The US is an entirely corrupt political system where large oil interests pay for the campaigns of Congress. And, you know, we give the US a free pass because they're allies, so called, but the truth of the matter is by constantly belittling China, and so forth we've created an aura that they're the enemy. I think Biden had a lot of audacity to go to COP26 with nothing at hand, no financing, nothing agreed by Congress, and then blaming China and Russia. That's ridiculous, frankly, especially since the United States is responsible for 20% of the historic emissions. But we had a nut for president who walked out of the Paris Climate Agreement, the man's a psychopath, and he's still around in power. Every Republican is against action. Many Democrats are against action. So my only tiny suggestion is call out the United States. Here, this is really a deeply problematic country, extremely worrisome. I'm very afraid of what's happening in this country, in many, many ways. But what I don't like is the belligerency of the United States vis-a-vis China, and then somehow piling on. I mean, Camila said, yes, they made a goal, and that's good. And by the way, without the European Green Deal, China never would have made a 2060 goal, so this is a triumph of the European Green Deal. And if we negotiate properly with China and discuss and exchange ideas, it will become 2050. It will, because they can do it in 2050, and they should do it in 2050. And I'm worried about the US, because we have so much political power to obstruct that this is a very serious problem, and because we're aiming to create conflict with China for all sorts of cultural and domestic political reasons in the United States. And it's not really a complaint, Camila, it's just an observation that we have to be careful with how we discuss these things, because really, I'd much rather call out Australia, which acts terribly in this, the United States. Because that's us, so-called, that's our side. And then I think if we deal respectfully and actually honor financial commitments with India, for example, India would do much more, but we've never had a serious financing discussion with India. I'm not in love, by the way, with the government approach on many things in India. So I'm not also giving a free pass. But I think the way we approach the rest of the world, lecturing them rather than doing our own work and not financing the basic amounts that we promised is one of the major reasons why we are not succeeding globally. If the rich countries had come with 100 billion, or it should have been 200 billion by now, then there would not have been the kind of COP26 we just had. So we should understand our role in the global process. I'm not lecturing, Camila knows every word of what I'm saying, but I'm just saying that we should phrase things in this way too. Thank you. All right. Well, certainly, and Camila, if you'd like, I will give you a moment later to answer. But although, yes, it is more a statement than a question, I suppose. But I wanted to get to Simone Mori, because, well, first of all, there's another question in our Q&A. So Maria Emilia Burgos says, hello, I'm a European climate pact ambassador. I'd like to know how civil society and experts working on climate change can contribute with implementing the European Green New Deal. And so, in line with that, I guess my question as well is, you know, along with institutions which are leading these transformations, what other actors? Can you tell us a bit more about the other actors? So, you know, the industry, financial sector, citizens, consumers, et cetera, et cetera. And obviously, if you want to address what Professor Sachs just said, please do. There is no sense. As I said, I believe that this is an evolution, this is a deep transformation that you have to engage all the society. You need everybody on board. You need companies, you need, of course, decision makers, you need companies, you need private investors, finance. You know, we are working out in order to define a new way of cluster-wise finance according to sustainable targets, which is even a more comprehensive view than the most established green board, for example. Finance is going to play a very important role. But it's clear that without the engagement of the society, there is no way to progress, because I try to connect to the topics of the two questions, because you may not go against a society which doesn't want to change. I mean, Jules Jaune is the top of a nice thing, but it's true. I mean, I was saying in the debate, there's a quite semantic discussion about cost of investments. Okay, I buy the investment concept at the end of the day. If you carry out a lot of investment today, you may have an impact on the average cost of life of citizens. So you have to manage it. You may not just deny that there's something that has to be done. But engaging the society means doing the right thing in order to sustain the development, for example, also from the point of your skills, education, schools, we need, we might need people, young people, young talents, to the level of the hierarchies of companies and the public sector have to manage the tools that you need, for example, Mr. Sax was mentioned in the digital digital is an inherent part of the energy transition. And we have to create the competencies that distributed companies are to sustain it to manage this revolution. We also have to take into consideration, as I said, that for some part of the society, this would be a problem. If you are a coal miner in Czech Republic or in Poland or in Italy or in Germany, it doesn't see this problem, that has to be managed. And again, the concept of managing the just transition area. What's the meaning of reskilling of people, financial support, reindustrialization of areas that have to be, whose mission has to be modified. That's very important. We are more on the hardware side of the software side. That's very important. That's a priority. Another point where you want to, we have to avoid the discrepancies and coherence. So I will fully support, for example, the idea of European Union to introduce a border carbon adjustment for, in order to avoid, let's say, climate dumping on goods and services. This is very important. We don't have to blame countries which are lagging behind. We have to take very seriously, for example, the concerns of India. Again, there were comments about India. If you look at us here, per capita emissions of an average Indian, it's a long way to go. We have to respect them. But we will provide that this long transition maybe came away for promoting unfair trade because again, and it would prevent our food society to be compact behind the effort of the carbonization. I don't want to talk about numbers because I don't want to avoid the big, the bigger and the bigger question about numbers, things are going bad or good again. As I said at the beginning, I would tend to put myself on the side of half of food class, but we did a huge work and technologies are there. I mean, there was no way to produce electricity at a cheaper, cheaper than renewable, for example, that offers us an incredible tool, for example, for overcoming several steps. Look at Sub-Saharan Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa probably has to more than double its own energy demand in the next decade, hopefully. It's not just a demography, but it's also to the economic development. They may jump several steps of technological evolution, such as they have done with the telecom. They may jump directly from no energy because we know how many people in Sub-Saharan Africa is still without any kind of modern energy access up to sustainable renewable based energy. They jump all the steps of, you know, fossil fuel, centralized infrastructure and so on and so forth. Again, technology is there. And we have to take into consideration the evolution, the trend, not the picture. The picture may be in some way disappointing here and there. In Europe, we have to look at that. I mean, the example of Europe is a very good example because it's the demonstration of the job may be done without reducing your competitiveness, without reducing your ability to create growth jobs and GDP. Of course, the time is different. Look at the dynamics of the dynamics of carbon neutrality 2050-5560 is an important topic. You need to target otherwise. You don't create the momentum. But I would say in this incredible transformation, it's a quite secondary point. Thank you. Thank you very much for addressing almost all of the questions at the same time. So that was quite an impressive feat. It looks like we've more or less reached the end, but I didn't want to end it there because it was so interesting. So if we could just quickly, I wanted to revert back to Camila Bausch, both because obviously Professor Sacks addressed her directly and also to say, look, how can we, you know, we don't have much time, but I just, how can we export this European model. I mean, you may say, okay, first we do this at home and then we see. But, you know, if you can answer the question of, okay, should we be calling out the people that aren't doing their job? Is there a difference between, for example, some countries that can't because they're in a different situation economically and countries that are very wealthy and aren't doing what they should be doing. I realize we don't have much time, but I mean I want to give you at least a chance to say something honest. Thank you. Thank you very much. First of all, as Jeffrey said, we are not in disagreement here. So it's just, I think, on a transatlantic panel, it's much better the American side talks about the American issues. And one has to admit though that just looking at the emission numbers, China is the biggest emitter at the moment, but per capita, the US and Australia are rightly called out today by Jeffrey Sacks. And if you look at the dynamics which were the cop for language, evidently, and China and Russia were in parts difficult partners but coming from a different starting point. So I think we have a diplomatic rearm acknowledged that in those who were totally disappointed with Glasgow, I don't think they do it justice. I think they all the lead up there was some dynamic which wouldn't have been possible in the international realm without the Glasgow summit. So I find that promising what I do not find promising however in the international realm is the G20. The Italy really tried to advance the G20 agenda combined with the UK who had the G7 presidency and the they together had the cop presidency and there was basically no progress within the G20, and they are responsible for 80% of global emissions. So that will be a challenge for next year. Germany has the G7 presidency. So right on Germany. Let's build a good basis to then go to the Indonesian G20 summit and help to create a positive dynamic and obviously the US will have to be part of it. I guess we are right now so relieved that we have a new president to talk about and to act with that already that is something we positively acknowledge but to be frank, that's a quite low bar. Even though he has an excellent team he has a difficult situation at home, and that will be the challenge to this presidency, to his presidency to see if he can still deliver on what I believe he wants to deliver. Let's see if he can make the political tide turn that way. And just a last note on the just transition point Simone which you mentioned what I find in the just transition very important that we frame it in a broad manner, and also look at those who suffer under the current situation be it from climate impact be it from air quality issues from cold dust and like and say part of the just transition is also alleviating the burden of the current system of those who are actually not privileged enough to be able to move out of the way of these kind of problems. So the just transition is, of course part of the cold worker debate but it's also part of the other under privileged privileged people suffering under the current system debate. With this I hope we find a wonderful sea bam solution which triggers a lot of positive dynamic throughout the world, instead of a negative dynamic where fronts harden and we get out of collaboration because we really need a truly global approach for this transformation towards the economy of the future and the societies of the future we want to see and we have at our hands. So let's make a good sea bam and embed it nicely in the diplomatic efforts so it actually works to the favor of the whole world. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, well, we're coming to the end so I'm going to let Professor stacks and it. Sorry, a bit quickly because we really are at the end of our, but I just wanted to give the one last word and so, you know, let's end it a little bit more positively perhaps you know would you still plants a tree if you knew that the world was ending tomorrow. The world's not ending tomorrow. We, we should be planting trees, and we should be using the G seven and the G 20 process, because we need to and I'm, I am very pleased that the G 20 this year has the presidency in Indonesia, a country that has a lot of determination and need for sustainable development. And I think it will bring developing country perspectives to the forefront. And I really like the idea of the German G seven feeding well into the Indonesian G 20 this sounds like a great plan so I really like that. Thank you very much. Thank you to all our participants to everyone who was online watching and commenting and asking questions. And thank you for having me as your moderator for this important as DSN and annual foundation partnership. You can read the report online there's a link in the chat if you want to look at it click on it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you once again.