 Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening to all our viewers from around the world. Sally Benson and I would like to welcome you back to the Stanford Global Energy Dialogue Series. We are living in extraordinary times, I don't have to tell you that. But to understand this unique moment in history through the lens of energy, we at Stanford have started a series of conversations about the future of energy. The first was with the 13th U.S. Secretary of Energy, Ernest Moniz, and the second was with the 12th U.S. Secretary of Energy, Steven Chu. So here's the first poll and a quiz for you. How many of the Stanford Global Energy Dialogues have you attended or are attending, including today's first, second, or third? Okay, so we have several firsts, 32%, second and third is pretty equal numbers. All right, so today we have the pleasure of welcoming a very special guest, Chad Holliday. Chad's professional career started in 1970 when he joined DuPont as a young engineer, having just graduated from the University of Tennessee with a bachelor's in industrial engineering. He rose through the ranks at DuPont and spent most of the 1990s in Japan as the head of DuPont Asia Pacific. This experience was transformative in his understanding of the value and role of business in Asia. In 1998, Chad was appointed the CEO of DuPont and was the chair of its board until 2009. Between 2010 and 2015, Chad served as a chair of the Board of Bank of America and provided his stewardship during the financial crisis. As a member and chair, Chad provided his guidance to numerous other nonprofit organizations, including the Council of Competitiveness, the U.S. National Academy of Engineering, Words Business Council for Sustainable Development, Sustainable Energy for All, and many others. He was a member of the National Academy's committee that produced the Rising Above the Gathering Storm Report, which proposed the creation of ARPA-E. When I was appointed the first director, Chad graciously agreed to serve on ARPA-E's brain trust, and I want to thank him for his sage advice during those early years in ARPA-E. Since 2015, Chad has been the chair of the Board of Directors of Royal Dutch Shell. He's deeply involved in steering a company that has a long history in oil and gas to one that has to address the needs of climate change while providing access to energy. Shell is famous for creating scenarios of the future. The Sky scenario provides a template for what needs to be done to keep the global average temperature rise below two degrees, including negative emissions soon after 2050, the need for rising price on CO2 to more than $100 a ton, a massive increase in renewable adoption, and emissions-free hydrogen as a major energy carrier. We will hear from Chad about how is Shell doing on executing on this plan. More recently, COVID-19 has dramatically reduced oil demand around the world. On April 30th, Shell announced for the first time since World War II a cut in its dividends to its shareholders. So how is Shell addressing the short-term challenges of COVID-19 and bridging it with a long-term plan of leading the effort to address energy access and climate change? Sally and I will explore these topics with Chad. We will have a Stanford student join us for the Q&A session. And finally, we will open it up for Q&A to all our audience. So now let me hand this over to Sally to start the dialogue. Well, terrific. Thank you for all joining us. For those of you here for the third time, fantastic. And welcome to those of you who are just coming to the first dialogue. We'd like to start with another quiz. So we could pull this up. Okay. And for those of you who've been to the third one of these, I think you'll know the answer. But in a business as usual scenario, how many years do we have left before the world exceeds the CO2 emissions budget to keep the global average temperature rise below 2°C with a 50% probability? Less than 10 years, 10 to 20 years, 20 to 30 years, and more than 30 years. Okay. Let's take a look at this. Okay. Less than 10 years, 44%, say that, 10 to 20 years, 32%, 20 to 30 years, 21%. And a couple of you saying we've got a little bit longer than that. So interestingly, this is the exact same answer that we got the first time we asked this question. And I will say as a teacher, you didn't all get it right. It's 20 to 20 to 30 years. So maybe the next time we ask it, those of you who are here for a dialogue for, we'll have that answer. Okay. Well, Chad, let's go ahead and get started. It's great to have you here with us. Thank you so much. You picked the title of this dialogue to be the Golden Thread in a COVID-19 World. So please explain this title to us. And could you say a little bit about how COVID-19 has changed the world of energy and what are the lessons learned as we go forward? Oh, Sally, thanks very much. And thanks for having me at your room. It's a great honor to me to be a part of this session. When you asked me for a title, the two things that stood out was what I'd learned from the Secretary General of the UN, Ban Ki-moon. The energy is the Golden Thread. It's the critical step that we must have if we're going to solve so many of the other world's energy problems, including the sustainable development goals that the UN is very famous for. And his tenure is 10 years of leading the UN. He saw if we could get energy access and we could deal with climate change, those were more important than all the other issues of our time. So it struck me very heavily in my time working in his organization. And right now, the change we're seeing with COVID-19 is we've never seen before and that's the understatement. Let me put all this in a bit of perspective and why I felt they were the right two things for our discussion today. The estimates I've seen is that greenhouse gases are down about 17% since the lockdown for COVID-19. That's a massive change and we think about the massive change that's meant to all of us. But we've got to go down another 83% by the middle of the century if we're going to get to net zero, which is what's critical to avoid exceeding the two-degree warming mark. I look at what's going on today and we're all very much aware of this. But let me just remind you the amazing progress that's been made on disease that didn't exist 12 months ago and certainly didn't even have a name. We have 17 clinical trials now for a vaccine. There's another 128 in pre-trial. We have over 395 therapies, but even more important, we're already doing the work around the world to get the supply chain ready. How are we going to have the manufacturing capacity? How are we going to have enough containers just to get the material out and how are we going to be able to keep it cool through the whole process? So that is the kind of massive change we're going to have to have to deal with climate change. So perhaps the world being pulled together for this can actually deal with it a different way. Now, let me point out two pieces of work that I've had the honor to work on before, which if we use this catalyst for change, I think will be very valuable. The first one is the work of the new climate economy. Andrew Steer at WRI reached out to me and said, we want to answer a question. You know, what is the real impact to the economy by solving the climate issue and staying below two degrees? And we want an objective study and we'll take whatever answer we get. And I was great to serve on that, which was just before the Paris Treaty. The good news is it only cost about 5% more to build out the infrastructure over the next 15 years the right way. So we have a real shot at being less than two degrees versus the business as usual way. So it does not have the big impact. I would urge anybody interested in that subject to look at the new climate economy work. The second piece, new climate economy only assumed incremental improvements in technology. Ten years ago, a group of seven business people in the U.S., I was honored to be a part of, including Bill Gates and John DeOr and Jeff E. Melt, came up with something called the Energy Innovation Council. And we sat down quietly, no publicity and asked ourselves a simple question. Is there a technical breakthrough that could help us greatly in this energy transition? And after six months of studying with a really great technical panel, including Ernie Moniz was on our technical panel, we came away absolutely yes. The second question is, can we agree on what that breakthrough is? And we came up with absolutely no. There was many different opinions of what the breakthrough would be. And to pick a winner at that point in time was inappropriate. And the third question is, are we spending enough money to get there? And we spent it in a way that would be effective. And the answer was no. So we came up with a business plan for America's energy future. We sat down with President Obama and his key staff and reviewed it with them. And very simply said, we got to have a plan. We got to have a board that's in place for 10 years. It won't be pulled apart by every election cycle. And we got to spend $16 billion per year for 10 years, which would be $11 billion per increase in what we're doing. If we could do that, and not only will we make the discoveries, but we would have the development phase go through forward. It's obvious we haven't done that, but I think that's the next step. So I think we're in a real position now to move on, Sally. Okay, well, thank you. That's a fantastic link to your example about the preparedness for getting a vaccine against COVID-19. Okay, we're going to do another quick poll. So roughly how many exajoules of primary energy did the world consume in 2019? And for those of you who don't like exajoules, think of it as a quad, a quadrillion BTU. They're almost equal. Okay, 100, 300, 600, or 900. Okay, let's take a look. Okay, yay, go team. You got the right number, 600. All right, Arun, over to you. Thank you, Sally. You know you're at a university forum when you get quizzes, but luckily there will be no grading at the end. So Chad, again, thank you for joining us. Shell has been doing scenario planning for many decades. It has the mountain, the ocean, and now you have developed a sky scenario which described one of the possible pathways to meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement. And under the Shell sky scenario, the world would have a new energy system by 2070 in order to address this dual challenge of energy access and climate change and keeping it below two degrees. So for those of us, those in the audience who are not familiar with this, what are the most important elements in the sky scenario? Thanks for the question. Shell's been doing scenario planning for 48 years for about the after our 50th anniversary. And we model the entire energy system for decades ahead. The current one that the mountains in the oceans you refer to is out to the end of this century. I urge people who are interested in that to take a look at it because it's very objectively done. In no way is itself serving the Shell or the industry. It's as objective as we know how to do with broad-based input. We were asked by many people over the years to do something very different than scenario planning but using all of our scenario planning data. To say if you assume success, you assume we keep the temperature rise below two degrees. What are the steps that would have taken? So a future history, if you will, what we'll have had to take them to get there. And that's what the sky scenario is. It's one plausible way based on technology that's here today or could be easily scaled up to accomplish that. And the big takeaway when you look at that is a massive amount of change that has to take place. Let me just give you a few examples that I think will bring this to light. For one company Shell, we, by the way, sell about 3% of the world's energy, produce about 1.5% of the world's energy. So we're a small fraction of the entire energy supply. But by 2050, we would have to increase our wind farms, major offshore wind farm from one to 200. We'd have to take our oil and gas mix, which is about 50% natural gas, 50% oil. And we have to go to 75% natural gas. Biofuels, where we're the largest in the world with our partner in Brazil, we would have to go up 25 times larger in biofuels than we have today. We have one major carbon capture and storage plant. We'd have to have 20. And we would also have to add forest reforestation for a space the size of Spain. This is for one company. So the takeaway from Sky is the mammoth amount of work that we have to get on with. And so just a few people driving electric cars is just not going to be enough. And that's the big takeaway. Sally? Okay, terrific. Yeah, so how does an oil and gas company transform itself into an energy company with net zero emissions and do so profitably? And you just described how your one company would need to do so many different things. But maybe you want to say a little bit more about the scale of the challenge, not just for Shell, but for the energy system in general. And really, what are the most challenging parts of this? Why is this going to be difficult? Sally, you've got to be humble. And if I had to say the most important thing is we have to be humble. We have to listen. We have to listen to customers. We have to listen to governments. We have an electronic game we play with our customers and government officials to understand a fast simulation, if you will, of climate change playing out. And you play different roles, governments and customers and NGOs, activists, academic institutions. Governments have the hardest time because they've got to serve so many other needs. And so that's the big takeaway from playing this game. So we have to listen and we have to listen better than we ever have before. Shell's over 175 years old. Oddly enough, we started selling seashells and transporting them around the world. And if you could make a transformation from seashells to a major oil and gas energy company, I think we could do this one. And there's great confidence inside the company. I've been on the board for nine years. And I joined the board serving on a committee of the board on environment and safety, which is my background. And I saw some of the best work I saw anywhere in industry, better work than I saw at places in DePont and Bank of America going on a shell, charging itself $40 a ton for CO2. And as projects having a vice president of CO2, it would insist every project have the right technology in place. But I compare that to the announcement Ben Van Buren, our CEO made in April of this year in the heart of the COVID-19 crisis. Another major step up in our ambition that we will be net zero by 2050 or before of all of our operations. And some very leading edge work, which I won't take you through the details of called net carbon footprint to help our customers and every major sector we serve, aviation, marine, road transport accomplish the same thing. And I just could not be more proud of what we've laid out. I couldn't be more proud of the enthusiasm that people have to do it, but it's a lot of work. And I meet about every week with a group of our young employees and understand what they see as the optimistic part. I think a lot of my role is listening to them too to be sure we get there. But the biggest thing we have to do right now is move fast and start taking real steps now. And that's what Shell's doing. But so is a lot of other people in the oil and gas industry. Okay, well, thank you, Arun. Back to you. Well, we will then now have another quiz. What is the largest source of carbon-free electricity today in the world? Is it renewables? Is it hydroelectric? Or is it nuclear? The answer here, 5% renewables, 53% hydroelectric, 41% nuclear. Those of you who said hydroelectric, you got an A-plus in this. That is the right answer. It's 16.3% hydroelectric, about 10.2% nuclear renewables, about 6.6%, but it's the fastest growth right now. Let me turn to something that you mentioned earlier about Asia. Use most of the energy growth, Chad, in this century will be in Asia and Africa. Your stint in Asia on behalf of DuPont exposed you to a different world of business out there. And you learned a lot and you were extremely successful. And you have worked closely with the United Nations looking at the rest of the world as well and to advance its sustainability goals. The world is certainly not flat. You know, we notice there are many cultural, political, security, economic concerns that need to be solved simultaneously by the governments and by the businesses. So what would be, based on your experience, what would be advice to government leaders, to business leaders and to the youth of these countries which is trying to chart a course in sustainable development? A great question. Let me refer to my time working with the UN. I refer to it as we started with sustainable energy for all. My partner in doing that was Condé Yamkela from Sierra Leone. We started out as co-chairs of a high-level panel on behalf of the Secretary General. I've had many developmental experiences in my life at DuPont, Bank of America, Shell, but nothing like partnering with Condé through that period of time and understanding energy system from someone in developing country. It always hit me every time he would go home to Sierra Leone, he would come back with pictures of young women carrying wood that maybe had been carrying it for a couple hours to have the heat of the fire for their family. And how that we were serving them as we were trying to find a way to get access. I'll never forget the time that he showed me a new picture. He always showed me new pictures every time he went to make sure I knew it wasn't the same pictures every time. And I saw a little tear coming down his eye. And I said, you're always emotional when you see this Condé, but why so much? He said, that young woman's my niece and I can't do anything to help her. So it was very emotional. And so I think that work and the recognize that if we just go to renewables and we just go efficiency in the developed world, we will miss the point. And if you take nothing else for this time in this video, take away the access. One way to look at the access issue is maybe a little different term, but some actually some current work to say what energy for all group have done. And it's global cooling because the real issue is how do we provide cooling to the 1 billion people that really can't afford it today? Cooling for their food, cooling for medicine and obviously under very warm temperatures, cooling just so they don't perish from the heat. And there's another 2 billion people that have cooling but don't have it on a regular way where you can depend on it. So you're talking about 3 billion people at risk if we don't find a way to provide them cooling and obviously avoid the extremes as we go forward. I've obviously very, very passionate about this. I've been very careful in my role at Shell as the director of the board, I can't bring my individual passions and I was very pleased to see Ben Van Birden, our CEO taking interest in this and I personally stayed out of it and then he told me one day we're gonna announce this was only about a year and a half ago that we're gonna bring electricity to 100 million people that don't currently have access. We're gonna help enable that, not do it all ourselves but enable it and we're gonna do it by 2030 and he announced this about two years ago so a 12-year period of time. And I reminded him that that's 10% of the people in the world that don't have it. This is a mammoth commitment and I couldn't help but say, how'd you get to 100 million? And he said, well, the team brought me a goal of 25 million. I just didn't think that was enough so we went for 100. I said, well, there were a lot of numbers in between 25 and 100 but I could not be more proud of Ben and his team and all the people working on that because we take that ambition very seriously and it's a very big goal but don't count us out and what we hope by the example we're showing that with new techniques new approaches to bring access we're gonna find a lot of other people following us and I think that will happen. So I believe this is a real key piece and I would say that would be my biggest takeaway. Okay, terrific. So Shell has already begun the transformation and has made very big commitments but as you mentioned, I think it was what one and a half percent of global energy comes from Shell and there are many large state-owned and private oil and gas companies that are collectively and individually bigger than Shell and what if they decide to just continue selling products that emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere into the future and what can you do to help convince them otherwise and do we need a coalition amongst the oil and gas companies to achieve this global goal and how do we make sure everybody's doing their part? Well, I don't think we should sit back at Shell or any of the other major oil and gas companies and say well, because X country won't do it, their state-owned, we won't do it either. That's just not a satisfactory answer and we're not letting that hold us back and neither are other major oil and gas companies taking a step forward. I think what we have to find is where we could be economically successful in doing that. This cannot be charity. We have to find viable ways of doing it where we reward our shareholders at the same time and that's what we're focusing on Shell to have our growth and I go back if you'll allow me to go back to a story which I think is instructive during this period of time is for my DuPont days. I was actually in sales and marketing. I sold CFCs and a problem called the ozone layer came along and my company, I had nothing to do with the decision. I just had the implement parts of it. Say, we're going to phase out of CFCs. We're going to do it in five years. We're going to develop the replacements. We're going to have enough capacity for all of our customers in five years. We made that announcement. All of our competition said, number one, the science is not there. Number two, it's impossible what DuPont wants to do and this is crazy and it was a bit challenging there the first few months but after time and we looked at it, we worked on it together as an industry and we decided to cross license the technology. All of our five other major competitors got on with us, showed that confidence in industry could solve the problem, gave government leaders the strength to go to Montreal and have a protocol and we dealt with the ozone issue from CFCs. Now, I know that's a very small issue compared to what we're dealing with now but it's an example that it can be done and I think industry needs to come together. I am very pleased to see a number of our competitors, BP, Total, Equinor, good work going on by all companies out there. I see a lot of Chevron and Exxon people signed up for this and I know there's great research going on in those companies. So, I think we can work together and make a difference. Let me just give a very simple example of why a shell linking up with a solar company can make a critical part. We now have 45% of Silicon Ranch. It's a national Tennessee based solar company created by actually some people that I go back with because that's my hometown and I was very pleased to see Shell partner with them even though I was not involved in that deal whatsoever. But as they bring solar to a major company like a Facebook, like a Microsoft, like an Amazon who really for their customer's sake need to be 100% renewable and they need to do it now, you can't do it effectively with 100% solar. You know, we do have seasons. It just doesn't work very well. So, the partnership of Silicon Ranch with Shell, we can go to these major companies with that goal and assure them 100% renewable power year round through our trading organization. We have access to Hydro. We have access to other renewable energies that can balance that out. So, what we're seeing is much more rapid growth at Silicon Ranch because we can give a better solution. So, that's what we need to be looking for is oil and gas companies. Where can we use our expertise? Where can we use over our 40,000 restail stations where we have a charging now available at our stations? We have hydrogen stations up now, 30 in Germany, 40 around the world, four in California. These are the steps that the companies need to take to start pulling the market forward. Okay, well, thank you. We're going to now shift directions a little bit. I'm going to introduce Ted McElven and he is a second year student at Stanford's Graduate School of Business and he's going to ask some questions that he developed in collaboration with a number of energy clubs around the country. So, Ted, please. Great. Thank you, Sally. And thank you again, Chad, for joining us today. It's been my pleasure to collect some student questions from schools across the country, including Columbia, Wharton, and here at Stanford Graduate School of Business, among others. So far today, you've talked about the efforts that Shell and other oil and gas companies will and must take to mitigate climate change. However, many climate activists are skeptical of climate-related pledges from oil and gas companies, citing, for example, the small fraction of spending dedicated to clean energy relative to continued fossil development. As just one expression of this lack of trust, students across the country, including here at Stanford, have been calling on their schools to divest from fossil fuels. How do you address people that no longer trust oil and gas companies to be a part of the solution? Is there a way to regain their trust and to work together on this challenge? Ted, thanks very much. We had a chance to chat earlier. You're doing some good work in hydrogen. All the best. Please keep it up. That's an important answer as we go forward. I had a good friend, a former U.S. Senator, gave me a call about a year ago and said, I'm going to go to a major educational institution. I won't use the name, but very famous one in this country. And lobby heavily to disinvest between oil and gas companies, including Shell. And I said, okay, obviously, thank you for calling me. Thank you for telling me this. He actually took me to lunch to tell me that and it made me pay for lunch, which seemed like a double insult. But I said, will you let me sit down with you and show you what Shell is actually doing now? And also understand that if you defund us and we don't have the capital to move forward, what that's going to mean? Will you just give me two hours to explain it to you? After two hours of explaining it, he could see the difference that we're making. Was he totally convinced I'm not Shell? But he said, I don't have to be in a big rush about making that trip to that major academic institution. Let me see what you're doing. So I think the more we can explain to people the actual steps we're taking, we have a number of investors that push us extremely hard to be sure that we're a leading edge with our ambitions and our goals. We now, for our executives, pay tied to absolute concrete accomplishments around greenhouse gas reductions in the first three years. I think it's a very key step. The enthusiasm throughout our company to work on this is great. It is a key wave we're able to recruit people. And if they don't see us making real progress, solid progress to their standards, they won't be with us anymore. And that's when we're going to recruit the great people. So we will always be criticized. I meet with employee groups almost every week. And I had a question just last week from employee. How come with all this good stuff we're doing in their particular country, it wasn't any country that's represented on this call today, we get more criticism. And I said, because we care. And a company that cares and listens, we'll get more criticism. My guess that will continue, but we'll learn from that criticism. And I think by far I'm proud to be a part of Shell and so proud of all my colleagues in Shell, what they're doing. But I think the proofs in the action, the steps forward, actually concrete steps we're taking and we're making a number of them every day. Just look at our newsfeed. I think you'll see very concrete steps moving forward. Great. Well, I think along the same line of questioning, there are some students that have been interested in your role within Shell and some of the challenges that might be present in that role as you make some of these decisions. And so the business roundtable, which is a group of major CEOs across U.S. businesses, has come out with a statement in early 2019 that the new responsibility of a corporation should really elevate the interests of employees, customers, suppliers, and communities to be on par with the interests of shareholders, which used to be King. In your role as chairman of the board at Shell, how do you balance these competing demands between shareholder returns and other interests such as climate impact and health? Well, the regulations in Europe are a bit different. We're actually a PLC. We're a UK company. We're required by regulation to do that. It doesn't make any easier because we're required by regulation, but it helps you not forget. So I am very proud of what our company does carefully to be looking at all stakeholders, including the citizens of the communities and the world that we deal with. And that's very keen. And I find a number of companies that are doing that. Let me speak directly to the business roundtable because my time at DePont, I was a member. And DePont was doing some really good work on environmental issues overall. So when I first joined, they said, you want to be a part of the environmental committee? I said, well, that seems to make sense. So I went to the first committee meeting and what I found is their whole objective was to block bad legislation. And now that wasn't the stated charter, but that seemed to be what the agendas were talking about. I said, I don't think I want to do that. I don't want to be a part of this right now. So I dropped off that committee, stayed in the roundtable. They came back to me about three years later and said, we'd like to shift this committee to something else. And we will actually make it a task force on the environment. Would you like to come back to the committee now? And by the way, would you chair it? And I said, yes, I will do that as long as the companies that will stay there. So we had three CEOs from coal companies. And I said, I want them on the committee because I want to hear their point of views. The really good news is once I was chairing that committee, the three coal company CEOs never messed the meeting because they weren't sure I might do if they weren't there. So we had really good participation. But just an idea here is we hadn't had the imagination of near the number of companies that are in place today that were in that statement you talked about. But we could get people together around one topic, which is water. And so we found many companies that really could see the commonality of the water issue and because they would get in and work on that, including Bank of America was a part of that, getting in and working on the water issue as we move forward. I think that's pretty critical. So my message to companies is find something that makes sense for you. The environment is one big picture. It's not limited to just climate change or just water or just other forms of pollution. And you must work forward. I think you will find that there's good things going on in your companies and you need to root them out and shine a light on them. You know, when I was at Bank of America, I took a real close look with even with dealing with all the financial crisis stuff, some fantastic things were going on down in the company. In fact, Alex Liefman, who was working with me and helped me understand what the bank was doing, pointed out to me, brought a woman in to see me one day and said, she's working on something called a green bond. And I said, what's a green bond? Well, we're going to define what a green bond is and we're going to get more money to the right environmental projects. That was an unheard of concept then. It's a very common thing today just because Bank of America and I think JP did some good work in the area too, took steps forward to really improve the environment. So I just would encourage every company and every person on this call that's a part of a company, shine lights on the great things your company is doing and make sure you move those forward as fast as you can. Thank you. I think I'm going to hand it back over to a room now to ask some audience questions. Great. Thanks, Ted. Chad, there are lots of questions coming on and let me take the first one. And this is on carbon tax. As you know, there's Secretary Schultz right here at Stanford, Secretary Baker, have proposed a revenue neutral carbon tax. I think Shell has been very supportive of that. The question is actually twofold. One is how do you get the rest of the fossil fuel companies to come behind it and actually support it? And then finally, how do you actually get it done in Washington? Maybe you know Washington quite well. How do you get it done? First, Secretary Schultz and others leadership here is really appreciated. And what I like about what they're proposing is the simplicity of it. We have gotten a bill through Congress that's been almost 10 years ago now. It went through the House, didn't get through the Senate. Shell was a very active supporter of that along with BP, along with DuPont. I was with DuPont at the time we were doing it. So we've gotten close before, but not quite far enough. The position we have taken is that we think a carbon tax or some kind of charge for carbon, whether it's a tax as cap and trade, it can be different for it. The same result is absolutely critical. I don't think we will move as fast as we must if we don't have that incentive. I think Ernie would say we need a nudge. Well, anything's better than nothing. So a good strong nudge would help. We were tested heavily in Washington state last year where there was a state law going forward. It was a bad law. It was not well balanced. It hurt us greatly directly. But we refuse to fight against that effort. I wouldn't criticize people who did because it was a bad bill. But we think it's very important that we take whatever legislation is working on and help them to make it better. And we share all of our scenario planning and stuff with lawmakers. I think this could be a time. There could be a window here. And you put where we started this conversation with COVID-19. People coming together are seeing problems different. We have a very important time here in the U.S. and our governmental affairs. I wouldn't rule it out just this point in time that we could maybe make a big difference. And I'm talking with the next couple of years. Okay, so a question from the audience on carbon capture technology. So the question is, is how optimistic are you that carbon capture technologies will move the needle, for reducing emissions in the timeframe required? I'm very optimistic. And I'm optimistic because I look at our quest plant in Canada. And in fact, it came up on budget. The fact it's been operation delivering the carbon capture, we say it safely over that period of time. If we're going to build it again today, we could build it for less cost. I see some great research going on, even some direct carbon capture work. I see carbon capture and utilization, which is a piece. And obviously we do that today. We capture carbon in the Netherlands and we use it in greenhouses. So there are a lot of little examples. We just have to take the scale up 1,000 X or maybe a million X. So what we do need, I think as a carbon tax, something that would give more inspiration for that to move faster. But I don't see how to make the equation work if we can't make carbon and capture a much bigger element than what it is today. And I believe, I think that's one of those places where our American Energy Innovation Group would say apply a lot of technology effort, discovery effort to move us down the experience curve. Okay, there's a follow on question to this about methane. You know, what kind of progress is being made to reduce methane emissions? And there's also a discussion now about actually beginning to capture methane from the atmosphere, for example. And do you have any comments about that? We've been a leader because we're very strong in LNG and we transport more LNG and sell more LNG than any other company in the world. And being able to reduce the methane leakage is extremely important. The Environmental Defense Fund has done some really leading edge work on this. I really commend that you look at that. We've worked closely with them, with Fred and his old team to be sure we're a part of what's going on. They have a very clear statement. One of their leaders said, most leaks and plants can be fixed in two days with a wrench. So I think what we're talking about is people understanding why this gas is a very strong potent greenhouse gas. It has a different profile than CO2, but it's really critical we deal with it because of the timeframe and the intensity. I'm very pleased to see our goals that we've had. You can look at our methane policy in Shell. I won't give you a publicity story, but we're very proud of what we're doing. But we have to keep it up. It's critical that we stop the leaks to start with. Great. Thank you, everyone. Sure. Let me ask you about EVs. This is a massive transition once in a century. The automobile industry is going towards EV. The battery cost is coming down. Shell has acquired a company for charging, also a home battery company for distributed generation. So my question is twofold. Number one is how important is digital technology in this whole transition? And this is something we did not have 20, 30 years ago in the way we have it today. And the second part of the question is you mentioned about developing economies. The transportation out there is quite different from what we have out here. So if you look at the transition of electric vehicles here and in the developing economies, where do you think digital fits in? Where do you think the transition could go? Would it go faster in a place like India or Africa as opposed to the United States? And how would it look like out there? Well, I think the answer to the question of digital will be the cornerstone. I think it will be the cornerstone and so much of the work we're doing to reduce greenhouse gases. And we could talk about that much more. I believe an electric vehicle will be absolutely critical. And as you look at some of our scenario work and even the sky work, we'll say that we've just got to approach no internal combustion engines, new engines by the middle of the century to make the equation work. The issue will be how do you power that electric vehicle? Is it a hydrogen fuel cell or is it a battery system? Is it some combination of those? I think the jury's still out. I believe a hydrogen fuel cell on the larger vehicles, personally, you wrote transport is very encouraging. LNG is obviously an option today. So I think it's critical that we explore different ones. I find in Japan, they've done some of the best work on this area. I've sat with the Prime Minister and his head of MITI and had this discussion. Is it all EVs that are battery powered or is it the hydrogen fuel cell as a piece? And we actually had, as much as you could have with the Prime Minister, a very friendly debate about that. And he was still making up his mind. His minister of minute he thought it had to be hydrogen. He was kind of leaning toward a battery and I was saying, we got to consider both. So I think this is a really interesting time, but we have to move forward. And the more we can get on the road and we're putting them in our service stations and we'll sell you electricity in the UK. We have Shell Energy and you can also partner up. So you can either charge your vehicle at home or you can charge at one of our stations and we have fast charge stations. So we minimize your time there. So I think that's an important evolution. I think you'll see Shell is more of a power company than an oil company and it won't take too long in the future before you'll see that transition. Great, Sally, thank you. Okay, so this is a question back to your comments about developing economies and I loved your discussion about the need for cooling. But the question is, what are the best working solutions for the least developed economies and also for emerging economies? And I'll just perhaps put a spotlight on two issues. One is it was industry. How do we support economic development through industrialization and some of these places lack these industries today? And also, what's the solution for electricity? So again, the question is all about developing economies. It's mini-grids. It won't be the large grids that we know and most of the world today will be mini-grids with multiple sources of feeding it. Solar will be a part of that and wind will be a piece. We're very interested in finding natural gas locally and then using that, if I think it'll be for many decades but certainly a transition fuel. I mean, the most important thing we've got to do now is make sure they don't build coal-powered plants and we use the natural gas that's available or another source. Hydro is a key piece. So many times I found in our work in these developing countries that the hydro capability was a neighboring country and the ability to get agreements between them was the most difficult thing. In our work, it was an incredible energy for all. A very important step. We're at a critical time of getting support from our funders and we concluded we had to have an energy plan for countries that was investable that we could then show to our financial institutions that forward. And so Kandya and I said, we got to come forward with some plans and we're going to lose this thing. So why don't we get 10 countries? And we want the prime minister of the president or at least the numbers who in the country to personally sign off on that plan. If we can get 10 plans, we think we can then get the right number of investors involved and get this thing really moving as we move forward. So he went to all of his network of people throughout the UN and he was a little afraid if we only asked for 10 that we wouldn't get there. So he asked for 25. And the people he went to say, well, we don't want to let Kandya down. He has such respect for him. If he wants 25, let's ask for 50. Well, we got 72. 72 countries were willing to put together a plan that they would stand behind. Then we could go talk to investors with. I was very proud of the Bank of America because they led the investment work in that area. So that's what we need country by country. Our plans that are investable. You will find the great debate is we don't have the money or we don't have the investable plans. Well, it's both, but we got to start with the investable plans. And I think that's a major step toward moving forward because the details will be very different by country. Okay, great. Well, thank you, Arun. Yeah, I'm going to handle it to Ted because, you know, he's, as we learned, he's working on hydrogen. And I know that this is a big part of Shell's plan as well. So Ted, the hydrogen question. Thank you, Arun. We're getting a lot of questions in the Q&A about hydrogen and what role hydrogen needs to play or can play in the sky scenario energy future. So I was wondering if you could comment a bit on what role you see hydrogen playing in decarbonization, deep decarbonization, as well as what type of hydrogen that is? Is that scaling up green hydrogen, electrolysis powered by renewables? Is that a blue hydrogen with carbon capture and storage? And how is Shell helping roll out hydrogen? Thank you for defining green and blue. Most people don't know that. It is a very good job, by the way. I think it was quite accurate. Hydrogen is such a good storage medium. And it's something we know how to work with and we use every day now. And it can be done safely. I recall 20 years ago driving down the streets of Washington in a hydrogen powered automobile with Dr. Toyota of the car company sitting beside me. It was his car. And we had to have a DC policeman in front and behind us because we obviously weren't street legal. And everybody was worried we were going to blow it up before we got back. And think how that's changed. Think how the Mirage is a very workable vehicle today. And I'm glad that we have Shell plants servicing those and providing the hydrogen in the West Coast. We've got to get the infrastructure in place. Hydrogen, we know works. We know it's economically effective. But we have a major infrastructure barrier to get over. We will need to use blue hydrogen to get it started to get the infrastructure building. And then more 100% renewable hydrogen, so-called green hydrogen will come into place. But we have got to find those experiments to get the hydrogen working. I was calling on a major marine company for Shell and we're selling them LNG. All I want to talk about was hydrogen. So to get hydrogen to him, we have to find a way to bunker it to make it available. So it's putting in the supply chain. So we have got to find countries. I'm very impressed with what Germany is doing. They're reaching out in a major way. That's where we have the 30 stations. We're doing a lot of very interesting work around Water Dam and our major refinery at Pernas and our major offshore wind facility that we're putting together, a hydrogen facility that we think will provide road transport. So right now, we've got to get those actual projects out there. Not the theoretical studies. Just go do it. And yet we do need some of the long-range work as you and I were talking before we started. We're partnering with the Japanese government on their ship. They will take liquid hydrogen, which we think will be important to bring hydrogen from low-cost places into Japan would be one place where their current cost of hydrogen is very high. So we need those investments. If you had to ask me to pick one technology that's going to make the biggest difference in this energy transition, hydrogen. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chad. So let me ask you about... Let me go back to cooling. And you mentioned about the Montreal Protocol, which is probably one of the most successful international environmental agreement and how Dupont stepped up and actually created technology. We have a similar issue going on right now. As you know, the HFC or HCFCs that are being used today have a global warming potential more than 2,000 times that of CO2. And it's been predicted that if you do nothing, the leaks in the air condition is especially with the growth of cooling going on in developing economies about anywhere from 10% to 40% of the global warming could be due to the refrigerants. And so after the Paris Agreement in 2015 and 2016, there was a Kigali amendment to the Montreal Protocol. So given that... And part of the agreement was to phase out these HFCs and HCFCs. Question is, we are in the same... We are back to square one, almost. What should we do? And by the way, there is no drop in replacement for the cooling refrigerants. So how do we address this now? Is Shell doing something in that direction as well? No, so really good point. HCFCs were the replacement for CFCs. And we knew at the time we were doing it that the day would come, we have to replace those. But the step change improvement by going to HCFCs or CFCs was the right thing to do because we were able to make a drop-in replacement. The time working on it, it didn't seem like just a drop-in because it took a lot of work to get there, but it worked. This is a much bigger technical challenge, but we must solve it. We must find other ways of cooling. And no, Shell is not. That's not a core technology for us. But it's very important because these leaks are critical. I would say though, when we put the CFC replacements in place, HCFCs, we were massive leaks to the atmosphere of CFCs because when a technician will go out to your home to change out your air conditioning or something, they wouldn't think of capturing the CFC because it was just release it. But once we knew the CFCs were coming to a stop, the capturing in crew greatly. So I am confident we can do that again here. We can find ways to capture it. But I haven't been following the current technology as much. But your point is clear is there's more and more air conditioning in the world and there will be because of the warming that's happening. We have to find solutions there. Great. Sally? Okay, so another question from the audience. Going back to the sky scenario indicated that nuclear power is necessary. And question for you is Shell pursuing nuclear power technology? And if not, why not? There are very few things in Shell that there's a one-word answer to. But I've learned that when you ask that question, the answer is always no. And do not read that as a vote on whether nuclear technology should be a part of the energy mix. If we lose that capability, it's going to be a very difficult time finding other ways to make it up. So don't take that as a vote on the technology. It's just not in our core expertise. And we don't believe we can bring as much of the party. We focus on where we think our fundamental engineering capability can be applied. And that's not the clear place for us. There is some very interesting work on obviously small module nuclear that, yeah, I think personally, you know, you could make a big difference, but that's not for Shell. Okay. All right. Well, thank you, everyone. Well, Chad, let me ask you about the international front. I mean, as you know, the Paris Agreement was a watershed moment for the world. And that was in 2015. But what happened before that was really important is 2014. The President of the United States and the President of China got together and actually had some kind of an agreement. And that made the Paris Agreement really successful. The world is not exactly the same right now. But it is clear that if in addition to the developed world, if China and India don't decarbonize in the right path, you know, as far as two degrees, it could be game over. We'll exceed that. So from your vantage point and your past experience, especially in Asia, what should we be doing right now with China, India, and other Asian countries in their ability to decarbonize? What kind of policies? What would be, if you were the czar of the world, what would you be doing? Well, we're at a very unique time. And I'm talking the next 12 months is countries of the world are trying to restart their economies and they're putting money into investment, some in infrastructure. If they're not putting it in the right kinds of infrastructure, this could be a turning point in all the wrong ways. So if coal-fired power, it turns out to be a major investment thrust in India or China. That will be a big turn in the wrong direction. So we have to find ways of helping them see that natural gas or other approaches are better ways to go forward, and we need to seize this opportunity. So I think we're at a very critical time right now. I also find it's not very helpful for outsiders to come in and tell other countries what to do. But what is very helpful is to give them information and data, and that's what we do with our sky scenario or all our scenario planning. We very confidentially will sit down with any country that wants to, and Jeremy and his team will explain, here is how we have modeled your economy and here's what it would mean if you shifted to more solar and more wind, and you did this on efficiency that you don't have today and you went in with different kinds of mass transit than you have today. And I think that's where we can be helpful and that's where I think the other country should be helpful to provide information and partnerships. I don't think telling them what to do will necessarily be that successful. Great, thanks. Sally? Okay, so shifting subjects now to negative emissions. So the sky scenario, the IPCC scenarios really for the last, I don't know, half a decade have indicated that we're going to require being able to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the short term to compensate for difficult to eliminate emissions and then in the long run to actually take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere if we overshoot the two degree target. So one of the solutions that has emerged are now being called natural climate solutions. And when we think about natural climate solutions it's things like reforestation, afforestation, changing agricultural practices to retain or rebuild soil carbon and so forth. And I'm wondering, what is Shell doing in this regard? Is this an area that you're actively engaged and maybe you could tell us a little bit about what you're doing. So we think nature-based solutions are essential to getting to net zero by the middle of the century. And Shell is very actively involved in this. In the Netherlands, if you pull into one of our service stations if you buy our highest grade gas we will offset with a nature-based solution all the carbon from you using that in your vehicle. And for a very small price you can opt in and lower other grades of gasoline to offset. And we've actually have the forest that's available where they can see where it is. It's not someplace in the world they can't imagine. So we're trying to do everything possible to help consumers who want to make a difference have a nature-based solution to work forward. This is relatively new in the last couple of years but I hope it will be something we could extend. What we focused on is being sure that the nature-based solutions that we fund or that we would pass on to our customers like I described are solid and we're sure they will be respected and they will really accomplish what's important. So we have a team that's, I just had a recent review of the team of how we are making sure that nature-based solutions really gonna be there. I think that's very critical. I think there is with technology available it's a lot easier to do that today than it was just 20 years ago. But I think that's an important part. Yet there is a very controversial area some people and how to look at it. We would all like to have enough solutions we have to rely on nature-based but that's just not possible. And so I think it's very important that we come together regulations that make sense for that and that the world come together with a common set of regulations and there's progress today there are regulations in place but I think that's an opportunity as we go forward between countries. Okay, thank you. I think over to Ted. Thank you. So another student question that we had was around the role of politics in addressing climate change and specifically here in the U.S. although this issue exists in other countries how do we decrease the political polarization of climate change and what role can oil and gas companies such as Shell have in depoliticizing climate action? When we were doing our American Energy Innovation Council launch this is what I was describing we had with Bill Gates and John Doar and Jeff we were spent the morning calling on members of Congress and we found, you know people listened, you know when you bring Bill Gates people you know they got time for him great things he's accomplished and what he's doing for the world today. We were scheduled to have a meeting with some members of the House and we were told the meeting was canceled and we had a meeting with the president next we had a place to go so we'll just stay in this room and wait and then all of a sudden all these members of Congress start rolling in and there's about 40 of them suddenly and then we finally figured out they didn't get the word that the meeting had been canceled and so we had a very informal discussion about this issue about the climate issue and what could be done and what it means and what I found people no matter what party they're in you could have a great discussion about that and so what I find is if you take it out of the spotlight and now if the TV camera and you sit down and talk about facts there is a lot more agreement than you could imagine and so we've got to provide those forums where people can have that available to them I think it's something that the National Academy should play an important role on is providing experts that off camera away from issues to answer questions for it from your your senators and your House members and your mayors so that they understand what the reality is here in Shell we understand the science but I was concerned last year did we really understand the science deep enough and I invited three of the best world-class scientists from three different countries to come in and spend a half a day with our board and executives to really talk about the science and it was a wonderful session because everybody was just given and taken and asking the questions we've got to set up those kind of forums because I have faith in our elected officials but we've got to get an unfiltered information and I think everyone everyone on this call quite frankly has interest in this you should feel an obligation to do that so this is a question about COVID-19 and as we all know we are in a big financial crisis right now global crisis and you know and energy is all about affordability and it's really critical for the economic growth and this is something that we ask both secretaries Moniz and Chu how do we address COVID-19 economic crisis with energy is there a roll-up here and I know that in the sky scenarios you looked at the challenges but this is also potentially an opportunity to do things with energy that could actually address the economic crisis and get us out of this so can you comment on that as to the opportunity that that energy has to address the financial crisis well if you take about the financial crisis created by COVID-19 and of course we don't know exactly how that's going to play out yet it's still to be determined but we've just run one of the biggest experiments we could ever run that nobody would have ever agreed to otherwise so the whole idea can we do this work from home and we don't have to have as many commercial buildings full we don't have to have those trips so how much of that 17% I talked about at the first can be permanent and actually be more productive and better for society so what we need to do the work and Stanford do this work and a number of institutions on here what is the real difference that's taken place by this and how much can we lock in this reduction that we've had through this period of time so I think it's very important from that aspect and it's many studies need to place and do it I'd like to go back to where we started is the way the world has come together because there's such a common focus on COVID-19 everybody knows what we must accomplish there's not a plan I don't believe you know there's a world plan on how to do this but the actions that are taken aligned around that goal are so important if we could possibly get the world to align around the gold that we need right now with climate change this is an opportunity to do it because everybody understands that we are all in this together and when you look at the impacts that are going to happen two or three centuries out two or three decades out if we don't take action it's really scary and this I'm very optimistic we're going to find people stepping up like we haven't before during this period of time but yeah simple answers we've got to learn from it but I think the bigger learning from it is we can coalesce the world very fast and there's no country that says we don't have this problem with it well I think the kind time has come for us to wrap up today's dialogue Chad thank you so much I think there are so many takeaways for me one of the ones that I really love is the investable plans for emerging economies I spent a lot of time working on those issues and thinking about those issues and and that was really really helpful so again I really appreciate the time and your candid and thoughtful answers and for all of you from around the world who joined us again thank you very much we hope that you found today's global energy dialogue informative and relevant during these unprecedented times so I'd also like to invite you to join us two weeks from now for a conversation with Colette Honorable who again is the past president of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners who served on the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and is currently a partner with Reed Smith's Energy and Natural Resources Group so again thank you so much for joining us today Sally can I get one last comment in with that view? of course please please do so so first I want Sally we first met when I was with Bank of America and we were a part of your research work and that was outstanding fundamental research to move the energy system forward I just it was a great concept and I think you should make sure the world knows about that concept right now of companies coming together from multiple industries with a great university like Stanford and it was it was wonderful working with you there but and the progress is being made and the road the ARPA-E has become the poster child for doing it right you know how do you make companies use money wisely appropriately don't let politics get involved and what you said in place and you had me come out and meet with a number of your teams and what they were doing I've been your biggest investor for a long time and still a big investor so I don't want to let this call end without talking about what our two hosts are doing and the difference they're making they haven't had a chance to brag about themselves so let me brag for them thanks so much well thank you so much thank you Chad as I always said you know there are many fathers of and of ARPA-E you are one of the fathers and godfather of ARPA-E I was just the first babysitter I changed his diapers but it's grown now it's not running so but thank you Chad for everything you've done really appreciate it