 There is a global consensus that extreme weather and disruptions from drought, flooding and conflicts over natural resources disproportionately affect the developing world, particularly the most vulnerable in our communities, including women and children. Air pollution kills more Africans than even childhood malnutrition or contaminated water. The data from WHO shows that annually there are about 2.2 million environment-related deaths on the continent. Further, when we discuss climate conflict and demography, the issue of adaptation and resilience cannot be overlooked. West African coastal areas, for example, have long provided livelihoods for millions of fishermen. Coastal ecosystems use to provide a range of essential services, including fishery resources which have now been severely hit, especially on account of rising sea levels, triggering floods, erosion, increased salinity and disappearance of certain species of fish. Beyond causing major losses in coastal infrastructure, this also exposes many human settlements to the risk of inundation, which results in inter-regional migration. Of course, this results in loss of lives and livelihoods and often accompanied by community and regional conflicts. Agriculture, as everyone knows, is the backbone of Africa's economy and accounts for the majority of livelihoods across the continent. But our exposure and vulnerability to climate change impacts this also. And so these impacts are not limited to certain regions of people, but to our economy as a whole, from the macroeconomic impact of rising food prices to health and well-being impacts resulting from heat stress. So it's obvious that the global climate, energy and development conversation can no longer happen on separate tracks. But despite these huge setbacks that I've mentioned, and despite being negligible contributors to CO2 emissions, we in Africa continue to be the most adversely impacted by climate change. So much so that public resources that could help modernize our energy makes has to be redirected towards adaptation spending. But worse, we are being compelled to make disproportionately huge sacrifices as well as their countries. Continue full speed on defending gas projects and insisting that gas projects must be defunded as an important component of the drive towards net zero emissions by 2030. So our first obligation for us and for African countries must always be to ensure the well-being of our people through access to development services, including electricity, healthcare, education, safe jobs and a safe environment, including access to clean cooking fuels. We must prioritize solutions that align the development and climate agendas, and that is absolutely important. We must align the development and climate agendas. The global climate conversation can only be equitable and inclusive by putting all people in all geographies at the heart of the endeavor to save the planet. We must recognize and plan for growing energy demand. Its increase will be critical for driving growth, jobs and economy-wide progress and delivering healthcare and education services. Efforts are already underway, for example, in my country, in Nigeria and several countries across the continent, to transition to large shares of clean energy sources to do this. To get the world on track for net zero emissions by 2050, the amount of investments required in clean electricity, generation and grid storage infrastructure will need to rise to more than $1.6 trillion per year by 2030 at least. This is over four times more than what was invested in this sector in 2020. In regions like Africa, installed electricity capacity will need to double from by 2030 and increase at least fivefold by 2050. So much of the global investment in clean electricity will need to go into Africa. However, instead of prioritizing efforts to redirect global capital to our nations, efforts are underway to limit the development of gas projects in Africa, violating the principles of equity and justice enshrined in global agreements. Further, it also poses a great threat to Africa's energy transition, because the role of gas, for example, as a bridge fuel to increase the share of renewable energy in the energy mix and to rapidly transition away from firewood-based cooking fuel to natural gas-based cooking yields. Obviously, to natural gas-based cooking, obviously yields both environmental and health benefits. But LPG-based policies and liquefied gas-based policies and schemes are critical to realizing the required annual global investment in gas for cooking to increase rather than be constrained. The global community must recognize that all fossil fuels are not the same, and the critical role of bridge fuels in advancing the energy transition and addressing energy poverty is absolutely crucial. Making capital available to fulfill the growing energy demand in these regions of the world is central to reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement. So the energy access element of the energy transition and the adaptation and resilience element of climate change must all be interlinked and given equal importance. If energy access issues are left unaddressed, we will continue to see growing energy demand being addressed with high-polluting and deforesting fuels such as diesel, kerosene and firewood. As a result, efforts aimed to advance climate goals must first and foremost create carbon space for growing economies that have historically made the digital contributions to global emissions and have an obligation to their people to provide access to energy for electricity, for cooking and productive uses. I think clearly a just transition would involve taking into account access to energy for African countries and really creating, as I've said, carbon space for us. There is no way that we can have a just transition without taking into account the fact that we require transition fuels such as gas, for example, to be able to make that transition effectively and cost effectively for many African countries. What we are seeing at the moment is a rush towards defunding gas projects, which obviously means that we're not going to be able to use this transition fuel or at least be able to use it at any kind of cost that will make sense, which of course means that access to energy for us, for many developing countries and many African countries, will be well now impossible in some cases. So I think that a just transition obviously must take into account all of the requirements of access to energy for us and also the promises that have been made over time. You know, $100 billion of the promises in previous COP in several of the other climate chain conferences. And these have simply not showed up. We simply have not found the funding that is required for these transitions. And as I've said, just for energy access issues alone, our needs are certainly greater than many of the developed countries and those needs should be addressed. Hope is never lost. We strongly believe that these obligations will be met. In any event, they have to be met if the transition goals are to be met. So I think that we remain very hopeful and we must continue to put our case clearly because really, I mean, everyone knows that in order to be able to effectively transit in the way that we've all agreed and even to comply with various international agreements, this is fundamental. So I don't think that not putting our case clearly merely because there have been defaults in the past is the way to go. I strongly believe that we should say exactly what it is that is required and hope that our partners would do the honorable thing. I think some of the arguments merely require being restated clearly because they are pretty intuitive and I think that because everyone is committed to zero emissions in the ways that have been agreed I would say that any reasonable argument that makes this more likely to happen within the timeframes that have been prescribed will be accepted by all. So for example, the argument that we need fossil fuels, especially gas, to transit to renewable energies eventually and to transit to zero emissions, it's a very clear and logical one. One of the major reasons is that you need gas, for example, to ensure that we are able to contain deforestation. Firewood is, of course, used broadly in several African countries, especially in the rural areas. LPG is the answer to that and, of course, it's cleaner, it's much, much cleaner. So if we want to avoid deforestation, that's obviously the way to go. And so I think that some of these arguments are compelling and I'm strongly of the view that when we present these arguments as clearly and show what the actual benefits are to the overall objective of net zero emissions, we should be able to persuade our partners. And I think that already we are getting some traction on some of the issues that we're raising and I believe that we will achieve the clear objective of being able to make the case that a just and fair transition can only mean that we will enable the use of clean fossil fuels such as gas, at least during that transition period and for as long as it's necessary. You know, all of these are related, which obviously is why the topic is the theme of this conference is as it was laid out. Every one of these issues is related. Climate change, of course, is related to the questions around energy use and all that. And that's why we are making the arguments that we are making, that we must be able to control deforestation, for example. And one of the ways of the controlling deforestation is just as I've mentioned, we need to be able to use more gas. We need to ensure that more people have access to energy. How do we ensure that more people have access to energy? I mean, before we get to the use, before we are able to use renewable energy in much greater form than we are using it at the moment, we certainly need to be able to deal with the questions around use of gas. But also, if you look at some of the work that's going on and some of the collaboration that's going on across West Africa, for instance, on the Great Green Wall projects where there's three planting efforts are going on, to be able to arrest to some extent the deforestation. And then some of the big plans around the livestock transformation plans, which would encourage more sedentary livestock farming and all of those ideas. Now, these are huge problems that have bedevils many of our countries, especially the Sahel region, for years and years and years. And the problems cannot be solved overnight, but I think that some of what we're trying to do, some of these various components, once they come together, we'll be able to see a sea change. We'll be able to see a substantial change in the circumstances. One of the things that you've mentioned and clearly is a major problem for the continent is the lack of money, despite the pledges that have been made by industrialized nations. And it's not just the case of the climate finance, is it? It's also the political will. Aren't you convinced that your counterparts in the West, in industrialized nations, do have the political will? I ask that because when we're looking at COVID and there are direct parallels that many are joining, we see this inequality growing. I mean, the fact that you have so many thousands of grassroots organizations saying, well, maybe we should actually stop the COP26 because we can't get there speaks of that major inequality. So what about in terms of the environment, in terms of climate change? Are they actually, are you convinced they are listening because they have the political will to listen and to create this fairer just society? I think the truth is that every country and most countries of the world anyway would look to their interests first. But I think it's also becoming obvious that that simply isn't the way the world works. And it certainly isn't even feasible. So whether as a matter of self-interest or for more altruistic reasons, you begin to look at how others, especially those in the less developed world, will survive how they will do well and taking them into account in the big plans and all of that, whether it's for self-interest or for altruistic reasons, there's no question in my mind that that must be the way to go and that the arguments are compelling for our partners in the wealthier countries to see that there's absolutely no way out. I mean, just to the point that you made about COVID-19 and, you know, vaccine nationalism and all of that, I think it's becoming obvious in the world that you cannot have vaccine nationalism and expect the world to be a safe place. I mean, no one is safe if half of the world still runs the risk of high infection rates of COVID or any other disease. No one is safe. And I think that these are arguments that compel everyone. And we've seen, even from COVID-19 vaccines and some of the more, if you like, some more collaboration that's taking place today, I think there's a lot more collaboration. There's a lot more emphasis on trying to work together, get more vaccines across to developing countries who may not be able to afford it. I think there's a greater move in that respect. And I can see that that will be the case as we go along. And this is the same with climate change. You know, you may start off and some of our partners start off thinking of themselves and thinking of their countries and their regions. But it is up to us, and this is the point that we'll be making for the past couple of months and years, that is up to us to make the case, a compelling case, which I believe we're making, that you simply cannot expect any real great results if you leave such a significant part of the world out of your considerations. So I am hopeful. I'm very optimistic that our partners in the world, their countries, will see the point.