 Let's continue here on this interesting discussion. We had one question here, a general question, and then we have a question in the front. Doug, Aaron, next. And then we can get to you, Madam, in the front here. So we'll start here, then Doug, and then you. Good. I think I'd like to start by congratulating the modelers and congratulating Wyder for working on this very urgent topic where I think it's really useful for many people to be able to refer to these detailed studies and analyses in a context where the urgency is underlined by the fact that there are regular meetings. There were two last week, one in Bangkok and one in San Francisco, discussing what the hell we're going to do about this problem. There's also another set of models called Earth system models recently published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science. Very pessimistic. Well, that depends. If you want the temperature of the planet to increase significantly, then that's fine. They're not pessimistic. Leaving Saudi Arabia aside for the moment, that's a way economists like to assume that Saudi Arabia doesn't do anything, doesn't change its production function or whatever. The evidence that you've presented here, and particularly the Indian emissions scenario, suggests that for the Southern Africans, they're going to be stuck in the unconstrained emissions. The Indian NDC scenario, as far as I could see from your slide, indicates that by 2050, India is going to be emitting a lot more than 6% of global greenhouse gas emissions. I think the thermal section of your diagram showed that there's going to be some attempt to limit expansion of coal production, but it's not going to be significant. You referred Channing to the interest in Mozambican expanding its coal exports. That's another unknown in the equation. So my question really is, the scenarios that you've put forward for low emissions, aren't they actually hopelessly unrealistic given the trends in emissions that are actually being tabled in international negotiations? The Indian emissions are what the Indian government formally puts forward in an international negotiation as what the Indians are intending to do. We have a problem. I'm glad I don't live in Southern Africa, and I don't depend on hydropower, but the emissions scenario that you presented suggests that the modelling that you're doing in Southern Africa, well, it doesn't look very good. Could you comment on that from the panel's point of view? We will do that. Let's go to Doug and then in front, and then we'll let all three comment. Doug? Yeah, Doug Arendt, NREL. Thank you. Very, very nice presentations. I'd like to reflect or maybe ask you to reflect a little bit relative to the Stieglitz talk this morning on different development pathways and this multi-prong approach that he proposed, and also bring into it much more strongly the climate environmental sustainability aspect, which was the question I had asked him. And let me build off the prior question and ask it in a little bit more different way, so one is to reflect on that, one is given the probability that the world is not on a tightly mitigating trajectory, which we know from the initial NDCs and the analysis thereof, with the intent that they would do a stock take and raise their ambitions in the next few years, what would, what do we need to do collectively as I'll call it environmental and development economists, to raise the confidence that those countries should take much, much stronger local ambition and action, as well as continue to engage in the international dialogue around the global commons, which is not or does not seem to be the primary driver right now, but it's really about the effect of that global failure on local development and local economies. Thanks. If you could pass microphone in front, or last question then we'll ask the three panelists. One more, last one here. So about the floods, I would like to ask you whether in Africa also floods bring the shiltation to the fields and it's very beneficial for food production also. If the dam then controls the floods and then there's torrential rain or storm and it becomes flash flood and people have already kind of be used to that there's no flood and they have been building and living in the region and flash flood comes, it kills people. It's not, not any kind of, kind of external is, but it really kills people and is this happening there and how you are going to kind of work on that in this issue? It's true that I mean, even if CCC in their site have shown that if all countries just follow their NDCs we are not going to be somewhere near two degrees also, right? So that's already there. So it's true that ambition needs to be raised by each country if we really want a stabilization scenario. The kind of research we are doing in India, say from my institutional point of view, what we are trying to do is that we are trying to present these to the government and say that you have more potential to take on the ambition, higher ambition. So this is one kind of negotiation you can see that what the researchers are trying to do. I'll just give a very small example. It was in 2000 when India used to go to different international negotiation and we were in part of the consultative committee of the government, right? So they used to invite us sometimes to discuss. So before they were going to one of the bond conferences in 2002 or so, so they said that, oh my God, we are going to the meeting again and we have nothing to show and the international community will be pressuring on us exactly this language, right? So what do we do? So then we said, actually our studies show that there are energy efficiency improvements which are happening in the industries. So why don't you show that these things are happening and you can see that how you can build on this later. Actually, I would say there were many of us and so when we all produced our results and they saw those, they actually used those in the international negotiation and showed that this is what is happening so we can commit something. So earlier government actually committed that how much energy efficiency reduction they are going to do. So these are, I think, these help the government so research community really need to come up with the solutions what we are seeing and how they can increase their ambition. So I would think that that needs to be the approach and we also need to come up with different thoughts that how the coal can be replaced so of course there are now super critical coal is coming but I think that there are different ways how you can do. So I think that the research community really need to feed in more and more and give confidence that what the countries can do and there lies our role. So that's one thing which I just think and so what is the other. So yeah, so one more. Yeah, that's what I wanted to say. I'm more optimistic now certainly than I was five years ago or seven. There's really a lot that's been happening over the past few years. One of the graphs that I like to show is global emissions have been flat for three years, 14, 15 and 16. There's been no growth at all. 9% growth in global GDP and zero growth in global emissions and from all of the major sources. And this is, you know, as a result of what Doug was presenting yesterday and FICA and others, and Joashri in terms of there's there's efficiency gains and then there's been big, big changes in the way that we generate new power with a lot of it coming from wind and solar. These are no longer this, you know, total investment in wind and solar, far outstrips, far outstrips, investment in coal, nuclear and natural gas. It's like a factor of two. And so these things are happening and so there's a pacing that's actually going on. We'll get from Edgar, the 2017 global emissions from fossil fuels. So this is not the full thing. And we'll see. We expect to see, you know, a slight increase in emissions because, you know, I don't know, maybe 1% or something like that. But nevertheless, you're going to look at a period, four-year period where the global economy has grown by more than 10%, somewhere around 12%, and emissions have grown by one and that's never happened. And you've got a plateau before you decline, right? And so we're starting to see these investments starting to kick in. So I think that there is a, there's quite a bit that's going on if you look, and a lot of it happening just recently, I think the South Africa case that Fayeika mentioned is talked about yesterday is illuminating, and I was involved in it. You know, eight years ago, it was coal as far as the eye could see and we talked about, you know, to reduce your emissions. And then we've been working and South Africa is very well endowed with sun, it's very well endowed with wind and it's had done quite a bit of analysis. And over the past three years, we've come around where basically there's a recognition that wind and solar are going in basically no more building of coal-fired power plants and the retiring of each one as it ends its useful life is the optimal sort of the least cost path and then, you know, so instead of arguing that, you know, we need this in order to grow, you know, the arguments are now, well, we can't afford to leave coal because of the social impacts in coal-producing regions and we're going to lose all these mining employment and so on and so forth. So I think, you know, that's a research agenda. I think it's a very similar agenda in India. Part of the good news is that, you know, where we need the new power is where renewables are actually quite good and developing world does pretty well in terms of sun and it does pretty well often in wind. So, you know, you would rather, if you had to generate your power via sun and wind, you'd rather be in most developing countries than you would in Finland, for example, especially if you were only dependent on sun. So this is different. How this fits into different development pathways, I think it's something that we need to think about. Certainly for large dispersed economies like you have in Africa, the availability of really quite low-cost solar mini-grids is potentially a huge gain. You're looking at many, many regions, parts of Africa where they don't have access to electricity and springing wires all the way out there is going to be quite difficult. If you can get relatively low-cost mini-grid systems out there, then you can start to do a different kind of development paradigm. You can't just dump mini-grids out into the rural areas, right? So if I subsistence household just kind of living and you give me a mini-grid, then what am I going to do? I don't have a cell phone out of anything where I use the electricity. So there's a whole integrated process that needs to go on. And I think that it does fit quite nicely with what Joe Stiglisch was talking about. So I think I've done that on the flooding point. Yes, natural flooding, you know, obviously, but what we're talking about here is repeated greater than 50-year events, right? Which these are big, or up to 100. And if you're getting in what used to be a 50-year flood becomes a 10-year flood, that's a real change. And there's a lot of room for adaptation there in terms of because a lot of the impact that we get is repeated washing out of infrastructure, especially road infrastructure, which in Africa is quite vulnerable. As spaces are large, you generally don't have a lot of repetition of roads. You don't build two roads out. So they're vulnerable to wash out, costs a lot per kilometer to build those roads. And if you're out there repeatedly building, repeatedly building, trying to redo bridges, it's going to cost you. Now, what needs to happen, and this is a real conclusion coming out, is you need to build your roads a little bit higher up so that you're not as vulnerable as you would be. So that's, and I think people are starting to take that into account. Very small addition. When we were talking about like the question which Doug raised is that when Stiglitz was saying, it was very interesting, he said that what we really need to look into is multiple sectors. And we need to address the multiple sectors simultaneously how those can be addressed. And if you look into the SDG framework of till 2030, it actually gives you multiple entry points. So basically when you are really looking into any of the mitigation option, we need not be thinking of only one mitigation option. Many model studies now show that you really need a portfolio approach. So how you combine them so that you get multiple benefits and multiple benefits in terms of say just take the SDG framework now. So if you think in that way, then you can think in terms of your short-term development pathways which fits into the longer term. And so just not looking into the mitigation but also the multiple benefits and which can encourage the governments to adopt multiple measures together. So I want to formally close this but I'm going to ask Johannes one question and then I'll stay here to talk about reservoirs and environmental impact. Within the Nile Basin initiative, there are lots of reservoirs that are planned and hydropower is an important part of the African Union's plan 2063 on clean power initiative. What is the position on the reservoirs within NBI and their environmental impacts? Surely with large reservoirs, there's going to be a certain amount of both environmental as well as social impacts. But I am personally against this general idea of saying large dams are bad. I could give you a case of the Grand Renaissance Dam in Ethiopia. It's a large dam. It's 72 billion meter cube of water and it comes at the border of Ethiopia. So if we look at the system, just downstream of that some further down 20 kilometers, the Sudanese dams are going to come online. So this is not a natural system downstream. So when we're talking about the impact of environmental and social impact, we're talking about that 20 kilometer stretch of river segment that comes just downstream of good river. So if we compare this with the huge benefit that it's going to bring to the region and for the Ethiopia as well, like I said, primarily by providing this cheap electricity, affordable electricity in the country where electricity coverage is only 30 percent. Also in terms of like in the future, if we're bringing more renewable resource into the system like wind, we're definitely going to need some sort of battery system. So and this Grand Renaissance Dam is a huge opportunity for that. Currently the capacity is 6000 megawatt hour, but the generation is going to be for base load. So the load factor is around 30 percent. So that extra 4000 megawatt hour is there and it's a huge opportunity in terms of serving as a power storage to modulate the system. So if we compare that this additional huge benefit with that 20 kilometers stretch of environmental and the people that's going to be displaced from the inundation at the back, I think it's un-proportional. So I think the point I'm trying to make is instead of generally banning these larger reservoirs, we have to look at every case separately. And one of the things that most donors are dealing with is trying to bring in safeguards so that we mitigate to the largest extent the impacts of those while getting the benefits. So I'd like you to join me in thanking our speakers for today.