 I'm going to go back on Doug's first question here. I suppose it's been kicked to me. This is one of the things that I think the intended nationally determined contributions are extremely important. I've been going around the world talking about, and you could talk about the economics of these clean energy systems and the fact that they're better and more economic, but they are a little bit less straightforward. You haven't tried them before. And there is, if you're walking into South Africa or Malawi or Mozambique or Ghana, and we've done this a number of times prior to COP, and you talk about clean energy systems, this kind of transition, and you get the response, well, why should we do this? And it was a complicated response. And now, it's a very, very simple response. Often, when you go in and have an INDC, they've said what they want to do. And when you go in, and so in a way, this has really helpfully linked the global with the local because they have already stated what their desires are. So in terms of my own facilitation as an advisor talking to these people, it's much easier to say, well, you know, I'm not telling you to do anything. I'm merely advising you on how you could go about achieving the goals you've set for yourself. And that's a watershed change that we've had over the last eight months to be able to actually say that when you go into a country, and it just makes life a lot easier and moves things into the system. I don't know if anybody has other comments on that. Oh, it's maybe a little bit, oh, that's on. Okay, so when I heard your statement about the complexity of local, global, actually what I was thinking about was on my topic of smart grid. So normally would you think about the system is on the distribution side, so local systems? And what you see happening is that in new urban areas, there's more and more interest for doing it right from the start. So put solar panels up on the buildings, put combined heat and powers into the ground, install heat networks, just doing it right from the start. And I think that's a big shift towards local systems because I have these green field projects and the possibility to go for investments which are long-term sustainable. And therefore for both green field projects and for projects which are in developing countries, I believe this interest for these local solutions is really there. So, yeah, and then the push from top down maybe not that much needed for such projects but just a support from the local municipalities would be really required. I'd like to step in as, this is from an academic point of view because you said local versus let's say, and hierarchical approach. I think there is a gap in the sense that most of the environmental policies that we looked into are made at the national level but the investment decisions, that's on RMD expenditure decisions are made at the company level. I don't think there has been anything done on how national level policies impact investment decision making on clean energy or energy innovation at the company level. So there is a nice little paper, something called a hierarchical approach or a multi-level approach of national policies in impacting decision-making on R&D. So I think this is worth looking into on this side. Let me open it up to questions from the floor and then I've got more that we can add in. Barry Gill's Professor of Development Studies at University of Helsinki. Alexander Gershengron famously used the phrase, pardon the phrase, the advantages of backwardness and looking at technological and innovation history and the relationship to development history that therefore it could be seen as an opportunity that vast investments in the old generation of energy production distribution and so on, infrastructures doesn't exist in some places. Then if we say that if we link up this energy revolution which we need to a zero carbon system and we need it urgently, then the rural electrification arena around the world is an enormous opportunity. And that could combine micro generation using the new renewables, preferably only the new renewables with the new smart cred technology. The question therefore comes to development finance. The development finance mechanisms are the key. Planning mechanisms as well. But then that's the question I wanna ask you. You know, what's your view about the politics of that at the moment? And whatever opportunities exist or strategies should exist or you know, how you think that can be moved forward looking at it more positively because potentially it could be a huge aspect contributing to an energy revolution around the planet and lowering, having low energy costs for the majority of the poor in the world as well and lowering all these other externality costs for them and for everyone else as well, right? So there seems to be a compelling argument that the finance should be available. So where is it? And how can we get it? I'm gonna go to you when we start. I mean, I'll start a comment and a conversation about it. So I mean, you're absolutely right on both fronts. One is the planning. So that how do you better inform planning and particularly planning that takes into account long-lived assets and the complexities of energy water development and zero carbon are getting toward low carbon. That's one. So that's data tools. It's also a lot of teaching capacity building because it tends to be that the decision makers within the planning complex and that's energy environment and finance, I would say those ministries typically tend to be slightly of older generation and therefore have grown up with a paradigm that they believe that centralized fossil fuel and or others is the answer because that's what they saw in their lifetime. And so in some sense it takes a little bit of a, I call it a generational nudge, maybe more than a nudge, maybe a kick to get them to embrace innovative solutions and new energy technologies. And or it takes really good, I call it modern data tools, visualization, realization capabilities and case studies and walking them around and showing them. It's like people don't believe that the sea ice is melting as fast as it is because they haven't seen it, right? And so do you show them a movie? Do you actually take them there? And sometimes they believe the movie, sometimes you just have to get them there themselves. That's one side. The second side is development finance. And here I'm gonna defer to Channing to talk a little bit more about this, but I'm gonna give you two perspectives on it. One is that the availability of money is not the issue. I have a lot of conversations and relationships with folks inside the investment community. And there is an enormous amount of money waiting to be put to use for the right return. The question is, is for the right return at the right risk? And there's the real, I guess, gap for development finance to play, which is particularly for developing countries and for economics, is development finance should, in my opinion, play a risk reduction, high leverage role, not its traditional, quote unquote, role that it started out with 20 or 30 or 40 or maybe more years ago, which was actually to pay for things. And that mode and that model has proven grossly inadequate for the last, at least 20 years or 30 years that I've been involved in development work with energy-related pieces. And then the third piece of that is that the technical assistance that needs to go with development finance needs to really work with the governments to put the enabling investment environment in place to allow the private sector money to come in. And as long as the private sector money feels as though they've got risk-adjusted returns that are appropriately penciled out, they will bring money into those countries at the right scale. It's rare that you'll find good institutional investors investing in anything sub $100 million or more at a chunk. And therefore, you have to think about what the scale is on that front. Those are my initial reactions, but we'll turn to you all. So yeah, I really, I agree, I think Doug has made some really good points. I think that we've both targeted the advantages of backwardness and this is one of the few things. One of the things just about making changes, the proliferation of cell phones in developing countries is an enormously helpful thing because you can really talk about leapfrogging in a really tangible way, right? And so when you talk about moving to energy systems you can talk about what has happened in your phone system. I work a lot in Mozambique. And now, I mean, for a long time, Maputo had much better cell phone service than the United States. And it's now penetrating into the rural areas. I think what Doug says is entirely correct in that, either the technologies in terms of, say, for distributed generation and renewable areas, they're either right there or they're coming at us very, very fast, right? So, and it's a bit like what Cheryl was talking about. We now have to, this falls now on this audience. In a way, the engineers have done, they've done their bit, right? In a sense, the technologies are there. Now we need the institutional mechanisms and environments to get them out into the, and get them to actually work. And this is, so I think as Cheryl was saying and Doug emphasized, if you just simply go and you have financing, you just plunk a panel down somewhere, that might not work. We need to pilot and work with systems that are gonna make for proper repayment of these systems. And that will bring the finance along with it. If they're gonna get a return, then there's quite a bit of finance there. There is serious public role for de-risking, what my French colleague always says, of these investments. The other problem with or issue with renewable investments is it's very high sort of fixed cost and pretty low marginal cost, which makes the finance aspect very, very important. But I think there's two things that are clear. One is almost surely not going to mobilize the kind of public flows that would be required to make all of these investments. And that's, the second is what I was saying is there is quite a lot of private capital that's out there that could do it if the institutional setup is correct, which is why I think it comes back to what we're trying to do. That's why we're doing the book and it's why we're partnering with NREL and working on this at wide. No, I agree with Doug and I just wanna pick up on what Channing said that with development finance, case in point Bangladesh, a poster child of climate change impacts, I think the finance is more or less there. The government of Bangladesh has already spent $500 million of its own money and is sitting on a pile of other allocation, but the problem in a country like Bangladesh is spending the money. In a country like Bangladesh, now it has become more difficult to get the funds, to spend the money than to get the funds. And again, this is where Channing just said that it's the institutional capacity, the governance quality that has to be improved for private investors to come in and fill up whatever gap if there is a gap in a country like Bangladesh. Yeah, and maybe just a little different perspective here is instead of just looking from the institutional side that has to be fixed or finance that comes from the government side, there is also an example in India of the company Rural Spark, which is actually just a for-profit organization, company that is providing solar panels to local consumers and by subscription consumers pay a monthly payment for this panel. And so using a mobile phone, which everybody has at that moment, they just activate the panel and they have to keep paying it and in that way actually there is just a private organization involved with the supply of electricity. So I think there can be new business models, which we don't even think of yet that should really go into these rural areas as well. Good question. Yeah, up here, if you would, thanks. All right, thank you. I have some experience I wanted to share. So before COP 21, the major issue was reducing emissions and others, but African countries came out, I mean, they brought in an argument because most of the countries were experiencing really intense power outages. So they put forward a proposal to link the two. So it was more energy climate nezzas. And they argued that, okay, of course, we are open to adopting renewable technologies and increasing investments in renewable energy, but we need the light. So it was more of a policy priority, whereas the, I mean, globally, we want to transition to a clean energy path. They also wanted to see light in their homes or to make sure there is power, at least to make sure most of the vital economic sectors are functioning well. So that was, I mean, the two, maybe, I mean, a clash, I mean, of priorities, which was really essential for them. So I mean, one, I listened to a former president of Nigeria, Uba Sanjo saying, I mean, what is solar? If Mozambique has coal, Mozambique should go ahead and use the coal to give itself power. If Ghana has oil, just use the oil to power yourself. I mean, because he said, I mean, the implementation of renewable technology takes time. That was his argument. So for me, it's basically that we come down to this reality that these governments need more power than you would think of that they need renewable energy, which will reduce emissions. I mean, the African countries argue anyway that we contribute minus South Africa, South Southern Africa contribute less than 5% of global emissions. So for them, what they really want to do is to make sure there's light at every home, so there's light to power factories and industries. And second, there was also, I mean, on the issue of finance and looking at, I mean, African countries, basically, I mean, there are two issues. First is that there is this lack of, I mean, priority, our political way to invest in energy. So apparently on current levels, African countries together, South Southern Africa, they invest about $80 billion annually in the energy sector, which is 0.4% of their GDP combined. So apparently it's really less if you look at the energy investments. I mean, that really also testify or attest to the fact that they have really intense power outages and then power shortages. And then there was also one issue about the fact that even of the amount they invests, there are some inefficiencies and these inefficiencies are linked to political patronage and then linked to misinvestment. They just invest in maintenance and maintaining all the facilities rather than investing in more of the energy facilities. So it costs African countries almost $80 billion annually and you can talk of Tanzania, I mean, two years ago where the energy utility provider, I mean, was stuck in this scandal where, I mean, billions of dollars were missing from the account offshore. So these are, I mean, some of the issues we show. So finance is first, how much are they investing? And then second, how much of the investments are going in the wrong pockets? And that, I think, should be considered in these discussions. Go to the institutional governance issues. But let me just respond initially and then you guys can chime in. So first, I'm relatively sure that one can build, in fact, I'm 100% sure that one could build 500 megawatts of wind and solar 10 times faster than a coal plant, 10 times faster. If you commissioned it, got a contract signed, typically that would be built in less than one year from literally rough ground into final. So the pace issue is actually a benefit to renewables. The resource issue, if I can calculate off the top of my head, the renewable resources in the countries you just mentioned, they have more than adequate renewable resource that provide power at European consumption demand to every person in those countries just based upon renewable resources. And so you could leave all of the carbon in the ground and have a complete renewable energy system in a shorter period of time than extracting the carbon. To your third point, which is, in fact, it's the institutional arrangements which are the largest barrier to achieving that kind of a future. And your example of missing money, things like that, the tax structures and things like that are in fact, probably one of the largest components, particularly in those countries, but many others. But now I'll turn to my co-panelist to add some comments. I mean, I think this is what I was speaking about in terms of less straightforward, right? I mean, I work in Mozambique all the time, right? And so it's really easy to think about sticking a coal plant at the mouth of the mine in Tet and running a wire to the power pool, to the power pool net network. And there's gonna be fossil fuel use in Africa and you're gonna build stuff. So there is a matter of balance. I mean, this isn't gonna happen right away. But there are alternatives. The first thing to think about is, I think what Doug mentioned, I mean, to do that scale power plant in Tet is that's a complicated proposition. It's gonna take a long time to build that power plant, right? And you're gonna have to build the wires to bring it down. And you need the water. And you need the water. And so there's just that set of issues right there. And then what are you gonna, you want to join probably, there's sort of political issues that kick in right away. South Africa already has a pretty ambitious INDC. South Africa is in the middle of sort of reducing, trying to reduce it's supposed to peak in 2030. That's as they're trying to get sort of shut down a bunch of coal-fired plants. They're not gonna buy Muslim beacon coal-fired power. And so you're gonna kick yourself out of the power pool. If we continue to get innovation at the pace that we're getting, you do have the possibility, and this would be unfortunate, of building a power plant, running it for, you're taking a long time to get it done, running it for a few years, and then having it essentially be obsolete. It's not, I'm not saying, this is, it's less straightforward. It's not as easy to think about, and in part because of the models that we have fairly clearly in our minds. But what's becoming increasingly clear is that the alternatives are just plain better in a large number of circumstances, and actually very close at this point. I think that the delay issue is really large, and just with the pace of technical advance, and this is really, you know, work with the Treasury in South Africa, and one of the most potent arguments I think we bring against a really big nuclear build is why are you locking yourself into one particular very large power source when there's so much stuff that's going on, it's already marginal at best, and maybe that's plus you're not gonna see that power for seven years under the best of circumstances. Whereas in developing countries, this issue of, we have the issue of with renewables, it becomes, it gets to be night every day, right? And so we don't generate that power. It's not windy everywhere. We have to balance that system. But you also have the larger scale balance. This is the root of African lack of power. I think fundamentally is the 20 years from the 80s and into the 90s when African didn't grow at all. So when I was in meetings in 2005, and trying to say, geez, we'd better build power plants and roads and all this stuff because the economy is gonna take off and there's gonna be a lot of power demand, you practically get laughed out of the room at the time. But with the, you know, we're now, here we are 11 years later, that's how long it takes to do these things under the traditional system. And power is a big constraint. So, you know, there's the system variability that's going on at an hourly or minute level, but there's also the matter of balancing, you know, your sort of aggregate ability to supply, you know, lumpy way with your demand. And in a developing country setting, your demands are really difficult to predict. I mean, it's not like Finland, which, you know, is gonna have relatively consistent power demand going out for, you know, quite a few years. Most African countries could either, you know, what's the range? Well, we could grow by 7% a year for 10 years, in which case, you know, we've now doubled in size, or actually, you know, we could do rather poorly. These are, this is a big range and the ability to modularly add is very important in that setup. And actually, frankly, most of the models that I've used don't take into account very well that aspect, I would say. True. Another question, comment, we've got one in the front. And then, then we're gonna go to a coffee break. Yeah, we're gonna go to a coffee break. A medical doctor, sorry for my stupid question. No stupid question. I'm from Africa, West Africa, Guinea. My aunt and cousin in the rural, remote rural area are using cellular phone. And my question is, is it because the innovation is not really ready? Sometime ago, the telephone line was very crucial step to develop in the rural area. Today we have a cellular phone, mobile phone that solve a lot of problem. My concern at this step, can we say that we didn't get strong enough technology to make affordable all these electricity and power issue? If I took in my country, there is a lot of river, there is a lot of potential, sun is always there, but we are still facing these crucial need of electricity. If I run a lab in my lab, I need electricity. That was a shock for me when I returned to my country. I would like to invest in the lab, laboratory too, but there is no electricity. That is a very crucial thing. Is maybe the innovation is not ready or is something who is... We are not reaching the good target. Do you want to start? Do you want me to... Cheryl? Well, so I'll do the crisp answer, which is that today distributed technologies, I guess you're gonna ask about distributed technologies, but also hybrid systems. So they could be mini-grid systems for villages. They could be based upon with a school and a health clinic and maybe producing water and purifying water, et cetera. So it's a bit bigger than just a household. Are technically viable, and there are multiple business models available like Cheryl talked about, et cetera, utilizing cell phone services for payments, et cetera. They tend to be much less expensive than the current energy that's purchased by rural households today, which tends to be kerosene and batteries, tend to also be much healthier, but they're more expensive than comparing against, I call it the traditional grid-provided electricity. So there's still more movement to go in terms of getting distributed generation to be as cost-effective as grid-based power. Again, agnostic of or ignoring the subsidies and the public health impacts and climate change impacts. So it's a little bit of an unfair comparison, but it's a lot closer than it was. And I think the interesting piece in your comparison against cell phones is, they're now seven or eight billion cell phones in the world. I think it's more than one-to-one, right? Yeah, something close to that. Yeah, maybe it's a little, maybe it's five. But anyways, I mean, they have proliferated across the globe with an enormous economy of scale. And if you compare the economy of scale growth of phones to the economy of scale growth of photovoltaics, photovoltaics are not very far behind and they're on a similar growth path. And so don't be surprised to see more and more cost-effective solutions even in the near-term future. But I'll turn to these guys. I just, I wanted to, do you want to add there? No, thank you all for coming. I wanted to add one point on complexities between local and global, which we talk about in the book and I think is important is just looking further forward. I think that what we say is this bottom-up approach has been extremely effective for getting going. There are now a bunch of things on the table and there's a lot of things happening and the fact that I thought Doug would mention that he didn't mention is more than half of new installed capacity globally for 2014 and 2015 was renewable, right? It was, and billions and billions are being invested by private parties. So this is not, we're not sort of just kind of talking in the abstract or we're talking about more than half of capacity that's going in. A lot more needs to be done. But at this point, partly it's easy and maybe technology will sort of smooth the path, maybe if you go very fast. But right now, we're gonna need monitoring kind of, we're gonna need sort of know what other countries are doing. We don't want energy, we want energy intensive industries to move to areas with high sort of low clean energy potential, not to areas where coal is cheap. And so this kind of dealing with the global issue is complex and isn't really handled within Paris. And so as we look at going to a new, a deeper agreement to achieve the kinds of emission reductions that Doug was talking about, getting down to very low levels around mid century, we're gonna encounter a further set of complexities between global and local than this agreement has come to address at this point. So thank you all for coming. I think we've managed to keep, well we started a bit late and we're finishing roughly right on time. So thank you for coming and we'll look forward to the next. Thanks.