 Han vill inte ha. Hallå? Can you give me works? Hallå? Inchor works in there. I'm the executive director of Stockholm Amarmand Institute. I will not welcome you. I will immediately instead introduce Jacob Granit, som är centraldirektorn av Stockholm Amarmand Institute för som öppning. Jacob, det är djurs. Så funnande. The outcome this event is really about shared learning and brainstorming of ideas of action to promote change towards climate smart sustainable development. Så med det här, det vill jag inte inbjuda. Our co-organisers, just to say a few words of welcome. Så min äkling, please, from the Haga initiative, which is a business network, please. Thank you, Jacob. So lovely to see everyone here. I'm representing a business network, the Haga initiative, and the vision is a profitable business sector without climate impact. And today's seminar, corporate choices in a changing climate. That's very interesting. And one of the questions that we will ask you today is how are companies incorporating climate change information into their business sector today. To help companies with this task, I think there's two strategies. And it's the not lonely ranger strategy. And it's the not geek strategy. And the not lunar strategy is about cooperation. Cooperation today, policy, business, science, civil society need to transfer. Sorry, sorry. You're moving the presentation. I'm so sorry. Need to transfer knowledge between this group. And the other strategy is about adaptation or adapt information. First of all, simplify information, but maybe some of the get shivers about that. So to adapt information. So the business sector feels targeted. And I think these two strategies, the not not two strategies is very important. And I think that's what we why we're here today and what we're trying to do here today also. So I hope everyone feels this will be a great day. I'm looking forward to it. Thank you. Thank you so much, Nina, and that was the business angle of it. And now we'd like to invite Sasha Besslig från Nordea, who represents the investor angle of today's topic. Thank you very much. Welcome, everybody. We are so happy to be able to support this and thanks to Stockholm Environmental Institute and all the efforts and also hugging. One of the reasons why we think this is important is that we do have a choice as the investors and we do have a choice as a companies to invest and create returns in more sustainable way. The choice is not about doing things that in a short term will generate big returns. The choice is actually to be long term oriented, create returns over the period of time and actually build societies that we live in. We are bank with the biggest Nordic bank. We are biggest Nordic asset manager. We have 12 million clients and we have a huge amount of capital that is invested every day all over the world. Being a financial place also being a global citizen because the financial industry is probably one of the few truly global citizens because we transfer money from one part of the world to another in basically a matter of seconds. We believe that interaction with environmental institutes, with the business organization is key. We strongly need information. We need to understand the impacts and we need to understand how we can address that in investment context so we can create not only returns but also sustainable development which we believe is core for any business next 10, 15 years. I think it's going to be a very interesting day and I think the setup is fantastic so please enjoy and let's see how it involves. Thank you. Great Sasha. Thank you so much. It seems we are already on, have started the seminar and you want to please back to your safe hands to guide us through the days. Thank you Jacob. Why don't we give them an applaud? So we have the framing of this day and as you could hear from Jacob we have a very full day. I would be very honest. The first part here it will not be a lot of time for discussions and questions and so on because we have a number of very interesting presentations in limited time. However, we have the long discussion sessions, so questions coming up ideas and so on should be brought into these discussions. So then after also the discussion session we can take them back also in the final panel and when we have Peter Norman here as well the minister for financial market. So please note down questions, ideas, comments and bring them to the discussions. I don't want to waste more time when we have the key people here in the room who really sits on the science that will be presented over the course of the year actually. I would like to introduce first of all Dr. Pauline Midgley please if you can come up on stage. You know this is not just any person. This is the person who is here to launch the first IPCC report, the science and she dedicates one hour to us here. So we should be very appreciative for that. Your title is head working group at one technical support unit. So we are very curious to hear how you see some of the things coming out of IPCC report. The science may be of interest also for industry please. Can I get my first slide? No, I'm not sure. Anyway, it's very technical. I'll just stand here we go. OK, so you see a very fine Norwegian glacier. What you see here is in fact the I hope not tempting fate. It's going to be the cover of the working group one contribution to the fifth assessment report. I say tempting fate because the summary for policymakers of that report is going to be approved by meeting here in Stockholm from Monday to Thursday next week. So the report will be launched actually on Friday. So the title that I was given was what can businesses expect and I have to say I hope you don't expect me to tell you that because everything is under embargo until next Friday. Having said that and also talking to Richard Klein who's going to be talking afterwards. One of the things we felt that was useful probably in fact for many audiences not just businesses is to actually get a feel for what's different about IPCC. Why should you listen to IPCC rather than the other brand. What is it that IPCC does that makes it unique and essentially what IPCC does. It doesn't do its own research. It doesn't do its own science. It stands as the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Intergovernmental is really important and the intergovernmental panel over the last 25 years has now had just coming into its fifth assessment cycle with an assessment of scientific literature. On climate change issues on the whole range of the climate change program if you like or problem. Almost the mantra of IPCC is it's going to produce reports that are policy relevant but not policy prescriptive. They're intended by the governments of the world to feed into the policy process. If the policy process choose is not to do anything with those answers. That's also the governments issue but they've got a different hat on at that point. They have to be scientifically and technically robust. They have to be balanced, comprehensive and balance is two of our things. They must present uncertainties. They can't just say well this is what's happening and there's some other stuff but we don't worry about it. They really have to look at the whole picture. So the IPCC has this structure. It has parent organisations which are WMO and UNEP the United Nations Environment Program. The IPCC plenary which you see at the top is effective in the governments of the world. 195 governments are members of IPCC. I think they can come to the meetings. I think we currently have 115 coming next week. There is a very small secretariat. The IPCC bureau is our expert scientists of high standing in their countries who are elected by the governments to oversee the process of an assessment report. And the current assessment report as many before it has effectively three main parts. It has three working groups which are working group one which I represent which is the physical science basis of climate change. It has working group two which looks at climate change impacts adaptation and vulnerability and working group three which looks at the mitigation of climate change. So you can say that if you like working group one provides the fundamental basis and working groups two and three hopefully provides some ideas of solutions without actually prescribing solutions but they present what the solutions might be whether adaptation or mitigation. There's also very important task force on national greenhouse gas inventories which essentially works very closely with the UNFCCC in helping governments report their emissions which is an important part of that. But the fundamental basis of IPCC is the bottom line. It's not all the top stuff. It's actually the people at the bottom. It's the authors, the contributors, the reviewers. It's this massive number of people around the world who really put a lot of time into doing this. So this is you know the boring bit. These are the principles governing the IPCC work has many clauses, many things but the two things which I really want to emphasize is that the role of the IPCC is assessing on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis. The scientific, technical and socio economic information that's relevant to understanding the basis of the risk of human induced climate change. It's options, it's impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. But that they are neutral with respect to policy. So the three working groups, as I say, I run through that very quickly basically in this current cycle which actually started in 2008 with the election of the bureau 2009 really the start of the work of the scientists. Working group one is assessing this physical science basis and we will be releasing our report in seven days time. Working group two which looks at vulnerability, impacts and adaptation hasn't till March 2014. One of the reasons for that gap if you like is so that the fundamental climate modeling results which are assessed in working one can be taken forward into working groups two and three so that they can base their assessments on the most up to date climate modeling. Working three comes out very quickly after working group two in April 2014 and then there is a synthesis report which brings together contributions from all three of these working groups. And that will be released in just over a year from now in October 2014 actually coincidentally in Copenhagen. These are in a flash, the IPCC working group one reports today just to show you that we have a history started in 1990 went through the most recent one was the special report that we did with working group two on extreme events. The elements of the working group one assessment report besides this very fancy cover is a large amount of information. There are 14 chapters or annexes the supplementary information. In those 14 chapters we actually look at the start off by the observations. What can we observe whether it's in the atmosphere, the ocean terrestrial systems in terms of what are we observing now has temperature changed, has the water cycle changed and so on. We then go into from those observations can we detect a change. And can we attribute that change to human influence and following on from that we then have through the climate modeling the projections and we do near term projections, we do long term projections, we do regional and global projections. And this time around we actually have a relatively innovative feature which I think is going to be very useful which is to have an atlas of the regional and global observations and projections so that people can actually take that atlas and look for their region, their business markets, the places they want to export to, what's the likelihood of climate change for their supply chains and everything else. That's an enormous amount of work. So then there is a technical summary which brings that down to a smaller basis and then we have the summary for policy makers which is exactly what we're going to be looking at next week with the governments which is about 30 pages at the moment and has nine figures and that will be approved by the governments line by line. So they literally go through it absolutely and that literally when you first hear that you think they are they don't really mean that surely but they actually do mean that they take line by line introduction. This is a report that can take a while discussing, can we call it a report? Do we want to call it an assessment? But and so it goes on. And it's actually a very strong process because what happens is that the everything that's in that summary for policy makers has to be consistent with the underlying very large assessment. So you'll read in the press, you hear people say oh the governments have come to Stockholm to change the summary for policy makers. In a way they have, they've come to Stockholm to improve it. They want it to be something which actually you can understand. It's not techy jargon like I would write if I was you know, left my own devices. It's it's something that they can take and say that actually means a certain thing and our citizens can understand that our businesses can understand that. So the intention is to improve it to slim it down to make it more focused. But only to the extent that the authors who will also be present. We have about 50 authors with us here in Stockholm. At some point the co-chair in going through this discussion will say authors. Can you go that far? Can you go any further? And they will say this far and no further. And usually the government say, okay, then that's as far as it goes because they understand to it has to be based on the assessment underneath it. So this is just a sort of schematic of the IPCC process for want to a better word where I've tried to show three lines, which is the on the left hand side, the scientific community in the middle, the author team and on the right hand side, the government. So the governments are involved right through the process, both in electing the bureau, in approving the outline of the report, in nominating experts, in selecting experts and then in doing their review. Okay, and say, this is where we're going to be the approval of the summary for policy makers will come along. But the other important thing are these steps of expert review that come on the left hand side and also government review. So this is a well reviewed report. And here are very quickly the characteristics, most of which I've mentioned the authors are nominated by governments based on their expertise. Gender, regional balance, the multiple rounds of review and then the line by line approval. Just very, I'm not really going to talk about treatment of uncertainty. I just want to flag that all of you as business people have to take decisions with uncertain under uncertainty. So it's what it's quite important for IPCC to know, to actually describe the uncertainties in their process, how you determine it, how you display it, how you formulate it and how you communicate it. And that's something that IPCC has worked on quite hard in the last few years to try and improve that aspect. We also have another aspect, which is important of the use of literature. Assessing all of the literature. For working group one, we give priority if you like to publish journals of peer reviewed literature, but it's perfectly acceptable for other material to be used, whether it's government reports or even industry reports, as long as the quality of that literature can be assured. And it gives then a responsibility to the author teams to actually ensure that quality. So just to almost finish with some facts about our contribution. We have 209 lead authors, 50 review editors from 39 countries. Not just them writing the report, there are 600 authors, contributing authors who brought in their expertise to write small parts. We have 2 million, oh, more than 2 million gigabytes of data, which had been assessed from the, which are in the climate models, which are then going to the assessment. In the report itself, over 9200 scientific publications are cited. More than three quarters of which are new since 2007, which is the last assessment cycle. So this is an up to date report. It went through a very large review process, many expert reviewers from many countries plus governments. We had 50,000, 677 review comments, essentially all of which have to be addressed in one way or another. And it will be approved in September 2013. So with that, this is our website. You can, if you look at that, follow it, you will see the summary from policy makers, hopefully well before this time next Friday. Thanks a lot. Rachel, why are you sort of a startup? Kan I, can I just ask one quick, because you mentioned also in the end the fact that, that, you know, you can use other material than just peer reviews, journal articles, even from business reports and so on. Can you give one example of that, possibly a type of material that you have used? Yes, because I, in one of my previous incarnations I worked for the chemical industry and one of the things which I brought in to the first, second and third assessment reports were emission data for CFCs. These were, this was of course shows how old I am. That's back when there were CFCs. And that's one of the things which only industry had that information. It was deemed by the author team to be high enough quality information to be used, but it came from a source which was not at all peer reviewed. Okay. And just finally, I mean, very impressive to see all these reviewers and so on. Do you have any statistics? If you look at it, how much impact or how much reviews do you get from the business sector? Do they read the drafts? They do, they do. I would say, I mean working group one probably less though, but we do have an obviously scientists from a number of companies. They have in the past been scientists from companies on the, well, as I was myself and say, but that really is very, actually few for working group one, but for the other working groups, obviously many more. Thank you. Thank you very much. Really nice to have you here and we know that you have a busy week ahead of you, so we appreciate that. Thank you. Professor Richard Klein, senior research fellow at the Stockholm environment institute, and also a contributing lead author, isn't it? To working group two, which will be launched next year. We expect that you get much more gray hair, you know, in the next six months. Give us some background to that, please. If there's any left. Yes, exactly. Thanks. Thanks, Johanna. Thanks. Thanks everyone for for coming in and thanks for the invitation to share something about the importance to read IPCC reports, not only as the state of science, but also as an input to policy and decision making. Pauline already briefly mentioned the UNFCCC and I don't know, in our working group, I say don't use acronyms without explaining them. So I'll do that right now. The UNFCCC is the climate treaty as it was agreed in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio. It's one of three global treaties and it's still ongoing. It's still operational and countries meet every year to discuss a progress and next steps and this year it will be in Warsaw in November. The ultimate objective of that global climate treaty is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, whichever that means, but that was the sentence on which they could agree back in 1992. One way of putting it, and these are not my words, but I think they resonate very well, is there are basically two ways of looking at the climate problem. First of all, we need to avoid those impacts that are unmanageable, but we also know that there are some impacts that might be unavoidable and we need to make sure to manage those. And there are two ways of looking at that, that's both from the UNFCCC, but also how the IPCCC is structured, as Pauline said, working group two, dealing primarily with impacts and adaptation, and working group three, dealing with mitigation. So what do these two terms actually mean? First of all, there are, at the top there, the human interference that needs to climate change has an effect on companies, on countries, on citizens through certain impacts and vulnerabilities that may be apparent. Two types of policy responses at the bottom. First one to try and actually directly reduce human interference with the climate system, that means reducing the emissions or capturing them in sinks such as forests or on the ground. That's mitigation, that's the prevention side of the climate equation. Then on the right, there is adaptation to the actual impacts and vulnerabilities that can no longer be avoided. That's the part that I'm primarily working on in working group two. That is, if you like the medical metaphor, the cure part of it. So prevention is better than cure, but at the same time they're both needed because we know that we can't avoid all the impacts of climate change anymore. So in terms of IPCCC, that means working group one is really dealing with the basis of that climate, of the climate problem, the physics of climate change, the basis of that. Working group two looks at that very large part of impact, vulnerabilities and adaptation, and working group three looks at the mitigation side. So what are the options to reduce emissions and what will be the costs and benefits of that. The IPCC, as I said, is very important in informing not only the science of a community, but the international climate process as well. And it's a very nice parallel between the publication of the various assessment reports and how they are then being picked up and how they feed into the international policy process. But the first assessment report came out in 1990. That was before the UNFCCC was agreed, but the negotiations on the UNFCC were already ongoing. So that was a very important input into what then became the UNFCCC in Rio in 1992. The second assessment report came out in 1995, which was two years before agreement on the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Then the third assessment report came out in 2001 in that very same year. The Marrakesh Accords were agreed at the annual meeting at that year in Marrakesh. Two things were important there. One was how to make the Kyoto Protocol operational, particularly the flexible mechanisms in there, but also the notion of adaptation, which until that moment was really not a very strong part of both the IPCC report and the UNFCCC, because the idea was prevention is better than cure. And also the idea was that if we start looking at adaptation, that might actually distract us from the importance of mitigation, but particularly developing countries that were vulnerable and arguing that they were already experiencing the first impact, emphasized the importance of adaptation. And that was clearly in the IPCCC third assessment report and therefore also in the Marrakesh Accords. Then 2007, the number of things happened in 2007, one of which was the IPCCC fourth assessment report, but it was also the first time the UN Security Council talked about climate change. There was the G8 meeting in Heiligandamn, where climate change was an important issue, there was Al Gore's film, there was a stern review. It was basically the year that climate change moved from the science pages of newspapers to the front page. And despite difficult political constellations at that time in the Whitesides in China and others, there was agreement in Bali in 2007 in the form of a Bali action plan. It was basically agreement to reach agreement two years later in Copenhagen, which didn't quite work out. And what happened over time from the first until the fourth assessment report was that many more issues than just climate or energy became important. And this is a diagram actually from the time of Copenhagen that showed that it's climate change building that is under construction. It doesn't just have the roof of adaptation and mitigation, there are many layers of issues that one wouldn't necessarily think of as being important to climate change or at least being directly relevant to climate policy. But of course they are issues of law and governance, of economics, of society. The science of course all underpinning it, but then there are, I don't know if you can read it in the back, but there's a whole bunch of other issues. The issue of ethics and values, quantification of carbon, soils and so on. It's a fascinating picture that just shows how complicated negotiations have become and therefore also how complex demand on science and research has become that the IPCC needs to consider. So right now we are working on the IPCC fifth assessment report. The work of one contribution will hopefully be available next week. Working with two, as Pauline said, is a little bit slower. The idea is that this will indeed again feed into the international climate policy process with possibly an agreement in Paris in 2015. So that's sort of the background of how IPCC influences or feeds into, knowledge of the IPCC feeds into the policy process. Now of course we're here also to look at the role of business and the importance of that information to business. And it's thanks to me, this is just at the top of my head and I may not be complete here at all, but there are four important aspects or roles of business vis-à-vis climate change and climate policy. First of all, and we know that, and this has been hammered into here from the very beginning, there is of course joint responsibility to try and control emissions. And many governments or many companies are taking that very seriously through the carbon disclosure project and others are retaking a closed look at their emissions and that's how they can become more efficient. And of course the idea being that that's not only good for climate, it's good for the budget sheets as well of the companies. The second increasingly companies are realizing that not only perhaps are they part of the problem, they also experiencing climate risk themselves, maybe your production facilities are in floodplains or maybe the people who work at the company might be affected by climate change. Maybe your supply chains will be affected by climate risk. There are opportunities arising from climate change, both in mitigation and adaptation, whether that's green tech, whether that's water technology and so on, there's a long list of possible opportunities. And then finally the idea that not only government finance but also private finance can contribute to climate action in developing countries. Again, there would be a return on investment like all of these issues. My colleagues are going to talk much more about this in the next few presentations. So I'll just leave this here as a teaser. Thank you very much. Thank you. And while I can ask Marion maybe to come up and prepare yourself and she's sending Twitter, I'm sure, because there is a lot of people who if you don't Twitter, you don't exist. I'm just, I feel sorry for them anyway, don't you? Anyway, so the Twitter is hashtag. Climb is Climb is. Okay, so anyone who wants to send that Richard, while she's setting this up, really interesting, very good with these questions also highlighting, not least that. Okay, you have responsibilities as business, but there are opportunities as well. Can you say in a few words, how is business getting involved in, in the second report in working group two? We are perhaps even more so than working group one. We are certainly looking at the role in which the way in which business can both contribute to adaptation, but also in the way in which they are impacted. There is one chapter that deals explicitly with the impact of vulnerabilities of industry to climate change. There are several chapters that look at different aspects of adaptation. Again, there are business literature out there that we are assessing. So there is not one particular spot that sort of deals with all the issues of industry and business. I would say through all of work group two and work group three, there are parts of the assessment. Okay, do you, do you see in it because you've been involved also, like you pull in of course, quite a long time with the IPCC. Do you see an increasing interest in general from business sector? Yes, I think the first few assessment reports really the interest was from governments, the mandate of the IPCC is to inform governments and there wasn't really that much public interest in what the IPCC is here to be saying. I think since the fourth assessment report that has changed very much, both the private sector but also the public sector, governments at all levels, NGOs are taking real interest in what the IPCC is to say, and I think a conference like this demonstrates that interest is growing. Thank you very much. How many people in here represents business? You see, it's great. That's what we wanted today. Not that anyone else is not welcome. But anyway, you know, how many are here from more government type? I see one, I see a few, good. And civil society, outside of business, couple, great. Just to get a feeling. And you're all equally welcome. And I wanted to have that question because it sort of flows over to Marion Davis. So thank you very much, Richard. Marion, communication manager also at the Stockholm Environment Institute. Looking at since the last IPCC report, your question is how have corporate views on climate change evolved. So please, the floor is yours. Yes. As mentioned before, there was a very large project, multifaceted project at SDI in 2007. And the first big project that we did was looking at how to drive technological innovation. We were looking at solar foldable takes and at carbon capture and storage. I think everybody's familiar with both, but basically, you know, solar power in one particular way of doing solar power and then supposedly the way that the technology that's going to allow us to clean up emissions. It's multifaceted project on resource constraints, because as you probably know, there are many different reasons why resources, you know, resources. We don't have unlimited water. We do not have unlimited biomass. We do not have unlimited metals for specific, for specific technologies. And in some cases, for example, with the metals in particular, you have only a few countries and not necessarily the most democratic or the best run countries are the ones that have these metals. So there's a lot of concerns about resource scarcity affecting the ability of technologies to advance. It's also very interesting that, you know, nobody thinks of water as being a constraint for green energy, but it is as well. So for example, solar thermal, which is a wonderful technology that works really, really well in the deserts and inconveniently needs water. So, um, and then the last project that we did is on international trade and greenhouse gas emissions, and it's this idea that we have a globalizing economy where more and more production is being directed to the places where it is most cost effective to produce. And what we asked was what would happen if not just if we didn't just direct production to the countries that are cheapest, but also the countries that are most energy efficient and that are most low carbon in their production. And I don't know. I don't think one of the authors is here, but one of the really, you know, difficult findings of this is that, of course, you got, you know, to the extent that you are from business, businesses have a lot of choice in where you produce. There's relatively little that policy can do to steer that, but it is definitely an area where we saw that there's a lot of potential for businesses to start thinking about the emissions intensity of production because it makes, you know, and I'm sorry I don't have my, I thought I was going to have access to my notes that I don't, but, you know, sometimes there's a tenfold difference, for example, between the emissions associated with making a pair of genes in one country versus in another. So those are the big 3C projects. The last thing that we did was, we did a sort of an overview report in which we looked at how things had changed since we started out. And we surveyed 3C companies. We also looked at corporate social responsibility reports for major corporations that were already involved in the carbon disclosure project. So these were not just random companies, but there were companies that had already showed some interest in climate issues. And we also just looked at what businesses we're talking about in general. And the key finding that we found is that, you know, when we started out, the whole thing about 3C was to a great extent to have business push for a global climate deal. And, you know, back in 2007, that was sort of the view that we were going to make it. And as Richard said, you know, like there was going to be a deal by Copenhagen surely, and then we didn't get one. And what has happened is that businesses have gradually moved away from thinking of that as a priority and relatively few are still pushing that. And instead what they have done is they've moved more to the domestic level, to their own countries or their own regions or their own states. And they have also increasingly internalized it. And this is where we had this really great synthesis of it by one of the people that we interviewed. We have this contradiction in the public debate, climate changes, lacking traction, because of the failure of Copenhagen, the financial situation. And he also named a few other issues. But in the meantime, climate change is more and more internalized by businesses. So this means actually, this is the core of what we're here to talk about today, which is exactly what does it take for businesses to start thinking of climate change as something that is not something nice that they do out of the goodness of their hearts, but essential to their operations. So one of the things that we asked businesses is what motivates them. And we found that the single thing that motivated them the most was still cost savings. If it happens to make their lives cheaper to somehow do mitigation, then they do it. Ironically, we also found research that shows that businesses that are motivated by cost savings do the least of it in terms of do the least mitigation. And the other thing that we found that was very interesting is that more and more consumers are demanding this. And to the extent that companies see more opportunities to do well by doing good, they're doing it. Am I running out of time? One minute. Oh, okay. The other thing that we found, the fastest growing thing that we found, motivator that we found was investor pressure. We have a lot of investors asking both for businesses to disclose climate risks and also to increasingly show that they're not harming the environment. And we found that uncertainty is a very big issue. A lot of companies don't really know what's going to happen both in the business world and in policy. And that is something that a lot of them are told us we're very concerned about. I'm going to have to skip this because I have a lot of different things. But these reports are outside and we're also going to have them on USBs. But we show, I mean, businesses are doing quite a few different things from talking to their suppliers to changing their own processes and they're looking at both mitigation and adaptation. The other thing that we found that was very interesting, this was both expressed in the interviews we had and also in the research we saw, is that increasingly businesses don't think of climate change as something in the future. They think of it as something now and that actually will lead very well into what Gregor will present in a moment, I mean Magnus will present in a moment. And the other thing is that global economy means that what happens in Thailand can affect you. And oops, sorry, went too far. I'll leave you with these thoughts. These are the main conclusions that we came out of that report with. Thanks, Drottmarian. Magnus, while you are getting prepared. Yes, Mary, I mean the last one is quite interesting and what is fascinating in ways that you say, because there is a bit of a failure on the global arena, actually business are taking more active, you could say, responsibility to seek their own ways or trying to address the issue. Yes, that's one thing that is obviously quite clear in this. Yes, and businesses, it's actually, from our perspective, a very smart thing because businesses are starting to realize that it's in their interest to act in many cases for a variety of reasons, not just for ethical reasons, although ethics is an important part. But certainly they understand that to have resilient operations, they need to make sure that they're not, that they adapt to climate change. OK, thank you. And I saw one of the graphs, which is interesting, is also more increasingly that they try to influence policy as well, themselves, being more active, which is of course also in their own countries. Thanks a lot, Marion, story for pushing you through a little bit. Magnus, Marion also stated the fact that business works more and more in their own supply chain, how to understand the risks and so on. This is something you looked into a little bit. So please, Magnus, support is yours. Thank you very much. Well, as Marion said, one of the themes that we got from the 3C final report was that supply chain issues matter a lot more to businesses these days, but also that they're often poorly understood. So the issue is really this. Your company needs to understand its exposure to climate risk and its climate risk opportunities and its supply chain to be successful in future. That's not an easy task, but it's a very important one. And here we have a picture of Bangkok, which has been already mentioned and flooding in 2011. And a figure that Marion mentioned, World Bank estimated the cost of that event to be 46 billion dollars in total. If you look further in the background of this picture, you see a Honda factory. I grew up in the west of England near a big Honda factory in a town called Swindon. That factory was preparing to launch a new Honda model for Honda Civic when these floods hit Bangkok. Production at that factory in the UK, thousands of miles away from Thailand, was reduced production to two days a week because they couldn't get critical parts made in this factory in Thailand. And that came in a year that Honda had already seen quarterly profits drop 88% as a result of supply chain disruption, this time from the tsunami in Japan. And the impacts on of the Thailand floods were global. The automotive industry in Japan was producing 6,000 fewer cars every single day as a result of flooding in Thailand. So climate change will bring more frequent and intense floods of the nature of the kind of scene in Bangkok. And climate change will magnify supply chain risks across all sectors. We'll briefly look more now at how. So on the right of the screen up there you see you, the buyer, at the top of the supply chain. And climate change will impact the price, the availability and the quality of the inputs to your business, and the more sensitive your inputs are to climate change, the bigger the risks that you face. Climate change will also affect the availability of the price and create price shocks in the short term and alter price trends in the long term for commodities and raw material. In 2012 we saw a crisis in soybean market, for example, as a result of consecutive droughts in the key producing regions of Brazil and Argentina, and then also in the US in the same year. Pushing prices at the highest levels they've ever been, and that eroded profit margins and producers as far away as China and the EU. It also had significant impacts on low income consumers and the World Bank Food Index price rose 10% in response to this soy crisis. We've seen governments increasingly imposing export bans and export restrictions during climate driven crises. And a key message here is that these droughts didn't just occur in one place. They were systemic system wide impacts of simultaneous droughts in South America, North America, and also in the EU at the same time. Climate change produces systemic risks, not just isolated impact. The location of your suppliers and of their suppliers influences your exposure to climate risks, as the case of the Thailand automotive industry just showed. And wherever your suppliers are located, goods need to be delivered to your sites and transported to markets, and this exposes them to another range of risks. I did some work with the Scotch whisky industry a few years ago, and one of the maybe unexpected risks there was in transporting their product to growth markets in the south of Asia. You imagine a whisky that's been maturing in a cask for over 20 years in a cold warehouse in Scotland is then ships through tropical Asia, where conditions in the container reach over 50 degrees centigrade in high humidity. Cork in the bottle spoils the whisky, the label peels in the humidity and can't sell the bottle of whisky when it arrives at market. As a proud Scott, I can tell you that's a tragic waste of whisky, not just a business. Companies also rely on a steady supply of energy and ICT services and water. And these utilities can all be disrupted by climate change impacts in the short term and increasing over the long term. And that adds a further dimension to your climate risk exposure. The longer and more complex your supply chain, the riskier it is. In supply chain management people talk of the bullwhip effect, but the peaks and troughs of supply and demand in the supply chain increase the further you move up the supply chain. Climate change will exacerbate that phenomenon, creating bigger risks for longer, more uncertain, more complex supply chains, particularly the kind that characteriser modern manufacturing, commodities, food and drinks supply network. Now the key question for companies is this, how much do you know about the exposure, sensitivity and adaptive capacity of your suppliers or of your entire supply network? How can you learn more? Now it's important to know the answers to those questions. We're seeing increasing pressure from investors, as has already been mentioned, for companies to disclose their climate risk. The CDP released that 2013 report just last week and that report was very critical of companies failing to improve the measurements of climate risk in their supply chains. There's also increasing pressure from regulators, we've seen the securities and exchange commission in the United States require information on material risks and climate change and company reporting. I've also seen experiments with active parliament that give governments, for example, UK government, the right to request climate risk information directly from some companies. So a company's attitude and approach to adaptation will be significantly influenced by the structure of their markets and supply chains, crucially the level of interdependence between buyer and supplier. In markets where there's a high number of competing suppliers, dominant buyers will tend to seek to switch suppliers to manage climate risks. For example, when a coffee crop is pouring Tanzania, you seek to buy from producers in Colombia. This comes with increasing reputational risks. There was an interesting report from Oxfam this year, looking at how companies climate change adaptation activities in supply chains can affect communities and companies in developing countries. Key message was that businesses that are seen to abandon climate affected suppliers will be criticized for exacerbating the vulnerability of climate afflicted communities where there's more independence between interdependence between buyers and suppliers, for example, in small niche supply chains or where there's a high concentration ratio, buyers rely on a small number of key suppliers. Adaptation options are more limited. Companies in these circumstances may seek to increase stockpiles or to move away from just in time delivery systems to increase the buffers, protect them from climate risk, maybe even to buy supply chain insurance. Alternatively, or at the same time, companies choose to invest in the resilience of their supplier, recognizing the shared interest of creating greater resilience in the whole supply network. An interesting example of this is from one of their key food brands, Walkers Crisp, was heavily marketed as being produced from 100% British potatoes to meet demand from customers for locally produced food. But that tied the company into that local supply chain and PepsiCo were noticing varying quality and price of the potato crop in the UK because of changing climate conditions. And in response, they chose to invest directly with their farmers to reduce these risks and that resulted in a number of contractual changes with their suppliers and investments to increase irrigation at the farm level and supply farmers with more climate information through mobile phone apps. And that case highlights that in markets where suppliers and buyers are highly interdependent, it makes business sense to invest in and to work with supply chain partners to manage climate risk. Now I'll leave you with an invitation to share your insights on supply risks and climate change and to benefit from some exciting new research that we're doing at SEI. Three one project, the changing climate for business project, we're engaging in participatory research alongside corporate decision makers in Sweden to look at how current processes and tools can account for climate risk and supply chains. Looking at enterprise risk management and supply chain risk management and how they're used in adaptation. Together with the consultancy terrains will be producing guidance for corporate decision makers in that project. And SEI is also looking at important new research and the international dimensions of climate risk. So asking, do climate risks respect national borders in a hyper connected world, we need to recognize the impact overseas, affect the economy and the wellbeing at home and evidence does not currently support assessments of these indirect effects of climate change. So through the adaptation without borders project, we're leading efforts to clarify what kinds of international risks climate change poses and how adaptation decision making and risk governance can better take account of those issues. Så we welcome your input. And if you'd like to hear or contribute to either or both of those projects, please I'll speak to me or contact SEI after the event. Thank you for listening. I hope you have a very interesting and rewarding day. Thanks a lot Magnus. I don't think I said that you are a research fellow at SEI. So this is something I say with the Lord proud that you are a research fellow at SEI Stockholm. So excellent presentation. Thank you very much. We're gonna have actually the panel coming up now. It's been, you know, tight schedule and we've had a lot of interesting inputs. Can I ask the panel members just spread out here just to come up with me here on the, you know, at the floor. There should be a microphone. I gonna use this microphone a little bit, so please come up. I'm gonna explain what I'm gonna do now. Please don't be shy. You can stand in the middle. Maybe we can make this a little bit black. Yes, we could. So I got to explain. I got to introduce you in a while. We just explained the process. Wow, pictures coming back on this. Can you make it black? Thanks. Thanks a lot. And I got to go around a little bit in the audience for a few minutes just to get the couple of, and can you make this one black also? Thanks. You know, get a couple of impressions before I introduce you even to see what they are, you know, what is going on in their heads out there. I ask you to take note a little bit of that so you can in your then interaction maybe reflect on some of these questions. And just to remind the audience that the theme of this panel is do business know enough to act on climate change. So, you know, you can be a short comment or a question, but short. So I want to have like four or five before I introduce the panel even to give you a chance. So any hands up? Yes. No, no, no. Okay. Come on. Where? Oh, up there, of course. Okay. So. Someone at the furthest end, but that's okay. That's okay. I like to run Friday. Here you go. And very quick. Tell us who you are also speak loudly if it doesn't work. The microphone continue to try just continue. Okay. So that's the fundamental question really coming back to our guests on the stage show any other inside comments. I'm I'm expecting someone from the other end, but no. Okay. The audience are waiting for obviously. I hope this is not a signal how the discussion will be at after the coffee here, but we're not coffee, but anyway, but shout. Det är så. Great. That's a very good question. Do we just say it's good for business, but it's not really, or is it really good for business anyway? I mean, too quick interactions there. Let me introduce now the panel. Dov Brakfeld, environmental sustainability for H&M. Please have you here. Måns Nilsson, who is the research director of the Stockholm Environment Institute. Vi har. We have also the Gitta Resvik, Head Corporations Portum and Maria Sunner, Flemming, director, energy and climate policies at the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise. So we finally also have business on stage a lot from science. Okay. We have analyzed you guys, but still are going to give Måns the first word and you know, very, very, very shortly answer the questions from your scientific perspective. Does business know enough to act? Yes. Good. Or you want to do like go on? Världen, or should I? You can actually be more of a politician and add a couple of things. No, I think there there are many uncertainties remaining and IPCC will continue to develop and refine the knowledge that is needed to deal with these uncertainties, but we will never know everything. And as we all know, it's impossible to predict the future anyway. So, but businesses can certainly act and they have to act in a way that is robust strategies in a in a world of fundamental uncertainty, and that goes for climate change as well as economic drivers, demographic drivers and so on. So businesses can act and it's relating to supply chains, the more robust supply chains in view of climate vulnerability, but also in terms of diversifying portfolios of products and technologies that go more towards the low carbon pathways. So my answer is yes, but if I can just ask you one more thing, Måns, do you? I mean the fact we could hear also from the audience here. At least the sense from the two, if they are representative for all, I don't know that business is not doing enough and so on. Do you think that if this if this would be the case that we still feel business can do more? Do we from science have responsibility in the way we are communicating risks, possibilities, opportunities that business can actually act upon? Yeah, I think we from the research side are not quite doing enough in terms of putting ourselves into the shoes of businesses and understanding the questions that they're dealing with. And this is about. It's not so easy because business leaders may not want to tell you what they actually are focusing on in terms of the key decision parameters, but we have to try and understand those better and direct our research efforts so that we can help them answer those questions. And I think this new work on supply chain is a good example when we're starting to do that rather than delivering broad system descriptions that doesn't have any particular relevance for the business decision making. We have to sort of pinpoint better what are the decision points and what kind of knowledge is needed for them to make decisions in this realm. Okay, thank you very much. If I could you move to you, Maria, because you represent, you could say that business sector in a way through the confederation of Swedish enterprise. So you have a lot of different sectors, different companies in your entire membership. What is your perspective? Do you do you sense that business knows enough to take more action than what is happening today? Or do you think that there are still a lot of unclearities which makes it difficult for business to know exactly what to do? Well, I have to say, I think they know enough, definitely, especially on the fact that the climate change is really happening. I don't think there is many people out there in the business community who actually disputes that, especially not in Sweden. But to me, I think maybe the discussion around adaptation and for example this that was presented on supply change risks. I think that is for me at least a little bit of a new perspective that maybe it could make more businesses act more on the adaptation and the risks connected to climate change. So I think that that's actually a very good thing to try to communicate that better. As you said, I think that's something that many businesses might not really understand what implications that this could have to their business. If you take the confederation and I mean the similar discussion that our question I had to months, what can you more as a collective do to support businesses in the work to adapt to climate change but also be more active in mitigation? Can you just play a specific role there? Well, of course, you could always do more. I mean, we could inform our members more. We could work more on these issues, but I mean, we are very small organisation, and I'm the only person working on energy and climate change. It's also a limited piece of resources from our point of view. But of course, we could be more active and we could be more clear on our positions also from the confederation of Swedish enterprise. If you look at the Swedish media debate, for example, sometimes it's highlighted that specific individuals from the business sector are questioning is climate change really happening? And I mean, we could be more clear on that we actually take this question very seriously and we're actually trying to work with it. And I know also that a lot of companies are actually putting climate issues into their strategies. So I think there is a lot of things happening, but maybe it's not visible enough for the big audience. But I mean, if I then ask, I normally don't ask my nasty question, but if I ask a bit nasty question, if you then say it's so important and you argue from the confederation, confederation stuff, then it's so important. Why? Why are you alone? Why? Why do you only have one person? I know, I know your capacity. I know you have to ask my boss about that. But we only have one person on each issue, rather. So I mean, I don't think it's just this area. You could argue the same thing for a lot of other areas. OK, that's good. That's good enough. I just wanted to, you know, push you a little bit on that one. And of course, you know, we believe that you should be at least five with you as the head of course. Thank you. I'll tell them that's good. Yes, we get that this week. You are. I mean, we have two corporate representatives from from individual companies here and you are in a way a little bit on the upstream side. You can say I mean, you represent energy sector, you know, one of the corporations we are hoping will look into mitigation of all. What is what is your perspective? Do you feel you have enough knowledge to know when you plan your business for the future? Do you know enough to incorporate? Yes, yes, definitely. And I will say that this is really embedded in our corporate strategy. And I will say that this is the top management team and the board. Everybody is really behind. We believe that there is a need to go for for more efficiency and also for more renewable. Or we call it a solar economy. That is that is on the long term. But of course, and also then we have to have a vision. What do we believe about prices on on finite resources and we believe on the long term? Yes, it will be higher prices. So that's why it's good to invest in in other sources as well. But of course, this is a timeline that is quite long for an energy company. We have assets when we build something. It is for 50 years or 80 years. So we have to really have a long term vision. And of course, we are then stuck with some of the assets that we have. And of course, we want to we need to use them. But then we try to transform to get in more bio into some of the assets and instead of full size, but this is a journey. I will say you can't change it overnight. But I was definitely to say that this is on the top of our mind and we are investing mostly, I would say, in carbon free sources. We are, though, in Russia and there at the moment, there are no possibilities with the economy to invest in other things than gas. But we are doing it with a high efficiency, CHP or carbon combined heat and power. So we are doing it really on the top of the cost. But of course, this is happening things there as well. But we need to go hand in hand with the politics. And we need to have price on carbon. Ja, I mean, if you take that and if you if you look a little bit outside for them and at the sector as such a few years back when we had a financial crisis, there was a lot of discussions that this was an opportunity really for investments in new forms of energy, renewable energy, etc. And then now looking today globally, not I don't talk about fortune. We see hydrological fracking. We see, you know, push for for drilling for oil, oil in the Arctic and so on. Coming from the energy sector, what do you think the thinking is there in your sector? No, but that's why I say we have to have a view of the long term price horizon. We can of course look into that at the moment today, but we need to have that focus. And of course, we have to look at different sources. And of course, we have to acknowledge what's what's happening. But that's why it's so important that we also have a view of that. We believe that there will be a price on carbon and that we can see also things happening around the world. I would say you can be very pessimistic, but you can also be quite positive to some things that happening, but it will take time. But I think that's why it's so important to have this type of discussions. So clear economic signals are key for you. And as representing fortune again, you would be happy to see clear sort of political signals that would actually make, for instance, fracking history rather than the future. Well, I don't have any comment about that. I mean, I see we buy sources, but I mean, of course, it is dependent on prices, but we like to see that. And I think that's why we are engaging in a lot in R&D and trying to get down the cost of new and alternative technologies. We are in a wave technology, we're in a solar, we're in others to really see the possibilities and we have to look into storage and things like that. We have to be very open minded to how we can form the new energy system. Excellent. Thank you very much. Yes, and you absolutely. And also because H&M, of course, from the presentation we heard about supply chain and understanding that. That is also very key for you, so it will be interesting to get your perspective and a stab on this. Yeah, well, it's just that going all the way back to the beginning, I guess I would say that yes, businesses can do, can act, should act, no question about it. And I guess things that I've seen from the previous presentations seem extremely familiar to me. I absolutely recognize that, you know, the companies do. There's a certain amount that we act when it comes to sustainability or climate change that is just comes from ethics and for questions, this is what we want to stand for and we invest in this or bear this cost because it's the right thing to do is what we want to do. And then there's the part that's seizing, doing what business does best, which is seizing opportunities and addressing risks. And that's hard, I guess, is one of the reasons that maybe it's definitely not moving fast enough. But, you know, so the question of are we getting the right information or is there. Do you need to know more? Do we need to know more? I don't know if we need to know more, but I'm encouraged by what I heard from about this coming, what is it, the working group to some of the adaptations to help simplify to make it easier language more usable by businesses, because the translation from the science to how can I apply this into my facility here to mitigating the risk here in my business seizing that opportunity is difficult work. We've all gone through the, not all of us, but we have gone through the operation of looking at where the hotspots are in our own operation, the climate hotspots in our own operations in the long supply chain, addressing those sort of mitigation. How can we address where our impacts are? And then the next step is also the resilience of the supply chain from a risk and opportunity perspective. And having more adapted information will certainly be helpful, not to, in any way, advocate responsibility, but I'm also encouraged by, sort of, I guess it's organizations like Stockholm Environment Institute or World Resources Institute that help with that translation sometimes with risk filters that we can use. But if I can ask you a concrete example, I think, you know, it's very fascinating that H&M are, you know, you have a strategy if I understand correctly, and I'm probably simplifying here, but you will move quite a lot of the production to Ethiopia. At least you have a lot of investments in Ethiopia. When you take that sort of business decision, which is a quite big decision to move from our perspective into a region where you have major issues with water supply, you know, variable climate and so on, regardless of climate change. How much has climate been part of that business decision? How much do you discuss the climate perspectives when you make such a decision? Well, sustainability questions, both from a social standpoint, environmental standpoint, figure into those types of, you know, I guess it's expansion plans. They absolutely do. We work with, you know, we have, there's the, a lot of people say that, well, if climate is the shark, then water is the teeth coming to get us. We have engaged in a water strategy with WWF that goes across our operations and into the supply chain. So the answer is, yes, it figures in. It does. Okay, so do you know of any sort of case when you're looking at investments where, where the lack of knowledge, for instance, related to climate change or the risk perspective, you know, perspective has actually stopped you from making investments or if that is anything for you as well from Portland. Okay, I just don't know. Use the microphone. There's a little microphone on the side, no, on the side of the chair, on the side of the chair, sit down and then here, here. Yes. I'm sorry. I didn't hear the what concept. Is that possible concept? It's a very specific concept. I'm not proud of jazz. I'm not familiar with it. You can discuss it together during the break. So because what I would like to ask you though, I mean, Mons, I gave him the sort of opportunity to respond. How can we, from the scientific community, be better at trying to address the realities of the corporate sector? From your respective areas, you represent a big corporation with a lot, you know, a very complex supply chain. You operate all of the world, the energy sector, wider, of course, with different strategies in different companies, but still Maria, the confederation, really broad base. Looking ahead, what are the sort of scientific questions that you see? From your respective areas. And then I will ask Mons, of course, to respond to you. What is it that you need help with? What do you see as fundamental questions still for you to take further action? Now, you know, you have a chance to give a wish list here to Mons and the wider research community. Any, anything in particular? I would like to know when, when to buy which stocks. No, I think, I think policy instrument and trying how can we go forward for, of course, the global pricing of carbon, that's one. How do we, how can we assess that in, in the different countries, in different regions and try to get a trustworthy system, because I think that is so essential. Then, of course, I mean, we're looking into new technologies and so on. And then we have the risk assessment. I think there we are doing this very thoroughly, but of course, I think we need more help with that. And then we're working with adaptation and we are investing heavily in the dams and dam safety and so on, because adaptation is already here. We are working with that. And of course, that is also analysis to do more. But I would say the policy is, is the way forward. Otherwise it would never happen. Maria, what do you see? Well, I still think that sort of reaching this global climate framework, even if it was said here earlier that that maybe you turned away from that, believe that we have ever will get that. I still think that actually having a global framework, I rather call it framework than a single agreement is a very important thing and all sort of policy research that could help that process. I think it's very important. Another thing is also that we actually have some, I mean, some processes or well industries that actually don't yet see how they're going to solve their climate problems. I mean, if you look at the energy sector, they have a lot of alternatives. So they are quite lucky, but there are other processes, steel manufacturing, etc., which has problems and they need research in order to actually be able to manage their emissions. So I think that's two areas that would be very important for more research. Okay, that's very specific. Dov, I won't get, you know, you're trying to get off the hook here too quickly. I think still, I mean, you represent the company working really globally and in particular with a lot of supply chains in countries. I would argue or facing a lot of climate challenges where you can play a very positive role. But what kind of support do you need in your business strategy development for the future, that you, from the scientific community? Well, I think I would, well, I'd first like to echo what I just heard, because I think that if you, I mean, I don't know exactly how much we can expect in terms of further or more detailed information from science. And we are literally trying to predict the weather. But what we can get from science that feeds into policy, which can then send signals to business is extremely, is extremely important. Yeah, that would be the, probably the main hope for me as well. Thank you. No, I think that's, that's a very interesting point. It's actually again, you know, making this policy influence. Måns, what is your take on this? Focusing on policy, focusing on policy change, make, you know, the rules of the game, really, that's where the main impact could be. Yeah, we, we were struggling with this, of course, and but there might be sense that the overall frame of a global carbon price as a driver of an even playing field is a bit utopian, and we may have to look at other policies and other ways of reaching a transition pathway. And I think there's a lot of, there's a big need to work on policy instruments and understanding in a more specific way, how instruments work on markets and also how they interact with other instruments. So because policies are clusters, trying to achieve many different things. So understanding, for instance, how energy security policies and climate policies and air quality policies are changing market dynamics in specific contexts. And these interactions are not well understood either by policy makers that decide on them or by businesses who have to live with them. So it becomes a kind of unpredictable world in that sense. And that, I think, is hampering the willingness to invest. Thank you. And sometimes conflicting goals and targets. Dobby, you wanted to have a final word there. I just wanted to make sure you don't think I'm trying to get off the hook. No, I want to sort of make it clear that my expectations from science as I said before, but that, you know, building the resilience in my supply chain, my supply chain, I wish, is, you know, that's, I'll take all the help that I can get. The information is absolutely helpful. But I guess that's, I don't, I don't think that's science's responsibility to build resilience into my supply chain. No, the building of resilience is yours, I agree. But you must have the data and information. And yeah, exactly. So great. Thank you very much. A short panel discussion, but really very interesting for us and feeding into the group discussions we are going to have as well. So a warm thank you to all four and applaud. So we are now going to move into this very interesting, I'm sure, and challenging discussion where you now will bring in all these different questions and points and whatever you have picked up during this very intensive introductory part. I would like to ask now, Pär Clevnes, where are you, Pär? Yes. Who is the Senior Project Manager at the Stockholm Environment Institute? Welcome up to stage and all the Siguradottir. Where are you all the other? You are. So tell us what's going to happen now? How are we going to do this? The floor is yours. Very good. I'll make a start. So thank you all. We're going to split into groups and I'll let I'll deal with the logistics of it. And I just want to provide a little bit of framing to the question that you will have put in front of you as you go into these groups. And the question is the following. Given the range of global uncertainties around investments, regulations and climate, what changes have to happen to give business leaders and investors the confidence to make big bets on climate action? Tall order and very much the topic of discussion that we just had here. And I wanted to give a little bit of context. At first off, I think that by the wording big bet is a short hand for something that really has been the themes of using a lot of what we heard here or making the actions that we've seen as necessary for the transition to lower emissions and to more resilience. Part of a core decision making process, make it a ground swell rather than something that floats on top. And so to think of that in that in those sort of words. And I think I think the broader context is that I think on some level science has helped a great deal if you like. We have scenarios and trajectories for changing our sources of energy for greater resource productivity and its possibilities for a new set of infrastructure and also for a new set of institutions, the investments that are needed to bring this forward. We also have some messages about the limited cost potentially of taking these actions as well as the large cost of inaction sometime in the future. What we don't necessarily have is the connection between this and what is on your next meeting agenda and to think about the current decisions that you face and ask yourself perhaps not so much what have we done but what have we not done. What were the decisions that we could have taken but that we did not take because something was missing. And I think would set this also in the context not just of policy. I think policy we all recognize is absolutely key. But let me at least put very briefly to you a slightly different story which may or may not prove right that we are seeing that a successful economy of the future and therefore a successful collection of companies producing in that economy may be one where the clever use of in the good use of technology and the early adoption of technology and of strong innovation is a core constituent part and we've seen energy technology come down in price spectacularly, whether it's solar, whether it's batteries, whether it's whether it's lighting and across a range of fields, bringing it into the solution space that really is within the grasp of ordinary business decisions regardless of policy. Other technologies such as 3D printing, maybe it's 10 years out, but nonetheless would have enormous implications that are not often understood for productivity, productivity with which we use resources. All place into our discussion but comes from a completely different direction. Similarly, the idea of resuscacity and resus productivity operates on a logic that regardless of policy we are facing significant constraints as a very large number of people are increasing their consumption. And here let me put it again then that maybe the successful economy of the future is one that is resource productive and that uses resources in a good way and not just energy efficient but across the various things that we've heard this morning. Now policy of course is also part of the picture, but I wanted to just open up the space a little bit. When you think of climate action again, the things you didn't do, what was missing and to have that discussion. We of course find this tremendously useful to direct what we think of as SCI and the wider research community. But I think also in terms of, we hope that you will find it useful. We will report back in the afternoon in our panel and also after this meeting, we will report back to try and give our collective wisdom on this area as well. So I hope that provides a bit of framing and I hope you have a very productive time in the group discussions. Hello, my name is Alta, I come from Iceland. I think training the table leaders that will lead you in this discussion. I could talk for the whole day about this methods, but I'm going to save time about that. So if anyone wants to ask me, I can meet them in the coffee break and give them some information. But just to give you some idea, we have used this method in Iceland since 2009. It started after the crash where we had 1500 randomly picked up Icelanders to define the value of the nations and actions and it had major impact on politics, politics decisions, etc, etc. So this method we're using have been used for the government, but originally it was from a group called the ants, you know, and it was bottom up ideology. But this method have been used in over 100 times in Iceland since 2009. We have done it for institutions, private companies, government, etc. So it's we think it's bulletproof and we have seen some results from it, both from more research about certain topics, but also a paper that had been delivered to the government, to the prime minister. So all kind of summaries comes out of this. So I really look forward to what you do this and I would like to just jump in and ask the table leaders or the facilitator to come here. So you see the faces you have already been separated in groups and you can see on your name tag, which group you're in. And so number one is Magnus Benzi, which is over there. He's a group number one and you will be following him in Malenbergs for lagen, which is just here out of the room to left. Really nice sofa area. Jakob Granit, or there. He will take you to Gabriel Larsson, Sweden, and maybe you should all meet him at the stairs because it's a little journey there. Also Ambron Nicholson, she's leading group number three. She's actually going to just the next room to Jakob. So you should follow them. Gregor Vulturius. There he is number four. He is going to be in the noble room, which is also in the next. Not next floor, the other one. Second next floor, Carl Halting. This is there, leading group number five. Banket Salen Salon, one, which is where we had the lunch. So it's easy to find that. Marion Davis. Oh, there you are. And she's also going to be in the bank at Salon Salon, and she's leading the group number six. Number seven is Maria Yurizu, and she's also going to be there in Banket Salon Salon. Per Klevnas. Han ska vara i. Det är skandinavisk. Vaxel Rymett som är här. Usis just here. Richard Klein, number leading group number nine, ledamått Rymett, that is where the chair members are meeting. So, yeah, it's also on the second next floor. Oscar Valgren. He will be in store for iron just next floor, the table order. So I want you to give this great table leaders that I've trained and they are excellent. They're really have a lot of experience. I want to give them applause in forehand, please. Table leaders, you can hear. There's a lot of expectations. Good luck, but say also that we must be back in time. One, one final thing. We must be back in time in this room because we have a presentation by Peter Nurman, so we have to start on time. OK, thank you.