 Now I turn to Bertrand, the metaphor of the oasis with the desert around that was imagined by Massoud is a good transition to your statement, please. Thank you Jean-Claude, and merci Thierry for your miracle. I will echo what Massoud just said, it's great to be in presence again. Yes, we are months exactly ahead of the beginning of COP26 in Glasgow, which is supposed to be one of the key milestones on the mutation of globalization. We are a few months away from COP15 in China on biodiversity and nature, which is another key milestone in our way to mutate globalization in the right direction. So let me focus on one of the lubricants of globalization, on finance. The question we are facing is, has finance changed for real, is it just another folk that is covering basically something that has not really changed? Everybody is talking about green finance, sustainable finance, ESG, etc. You can't open a newspaper without any reference to these terms. And it seems in a way too good to be true. And so my question today is, because this will be a key ingredient if we really want to change in the direction that was highlighted by Beau Jean-Claude and Massoud. Are we basically on track or not? So let me make three points to be brief to open. First, we now realize that the choices that we collectively made and endorsed actually, we all signed, including the US back now in the climate agreement in 2015. So in particular, the adoption of the sustainable development goals in September 2015 in New York and the adoption of the climate objectives in Paris in December were predicated on the fact that it would go okay. I mean, the market will align, people will transition, and it would not be that difficult. I mean, there was this kind of, you put massive figures because it would cost 4, 5, 6 trillion per annum, but it's okay because if you compare that to basically the size of the money of the capital pool, if you compare this to the size of the economy, it's a little painful, but the invisible end will make its way. That was kind of the rough assumption. And of course, we realize that it's not working. Even with COVID, we are not there at all. And so that's the real question behind the ESG. E stands for Environment, S for Social and G for Governance. Let me focus on E and S. E, the main issue is climate. I mean, now more and more people are familiar. I think the ideas are well understood. The price of carbon is a pretty well qualified issue. So I think we are getting there, but despite getting there, we are not there at all. I mean, the process is just starting. Then when you dig deeper into the E, in particular on nature and biodiversity, we are nowhere near where we are on climate and so on and so forth. So the E is already a tough thing. When you move to S, social, it's even more difficult because again, people agree that slavery is not good. But when you go beside that, you have huge discrepancies in the world. And so it's great to say, yes, we focus on social, but then when you enter into the details, then that's when the problem starts. And of course, as Masuda said, between E and S, I don't want to discuss the G, but happy to talk later. We should also add probably a letter T on technology because this is a new wave. How do we handle technology? I mean, we are a little bit submerged by everything you say. So that's my first point. We realized that 2015, the objectives were okay, but we did not really seriously discuss the ways and means to get there. And now it's a tough wake-up call. My second point is that we also realize that it's more difficult than we think. I mean, the depth of the changes required is more difficult. I mean, all the reports which were published in particular, the G cover, the summer show, it's a long way ahead. In that context, people start to question what's happening with finance. On the one hand, the BIS recently released a report saying that there was a green bubble. And basically too much money willing to look green is chasing two liter green assets. So this is really a bad signal. I wish there are more assets and less value, but that's, again, the temperature is what it is. On the other hand, there was a very interesting report released by a French business school called EDEC last week which was really reviewing all the green indices. You know, the MSCI of the world, they all pretend to be green sustainable, et cetera. And they realize it's not even ambiguous. They realize that it's 12% green or sustainable and 88% no. So you're selling to people products which are labeled green and which actually are not. So it's not yet very well known. I was questioned by a journalist on top of that. Maybe you've heard that DWS, which is a German asset manager, is under investigation by the SEC about potential greenwashing. And the journalist asked me, is it the diesel gate of finance? Is it the way you realize that finance is, again, lying to us? So I think this is the moment of truth and the moment of truth is close and I think it's very important for the financial actors to be serious about that. Again, we're not too far from the financial crisis. I think the financial world is still under supervision under rehabilitation maybe. And so if there is another big issue, it will be very detrimental to everything we are discussing. My last point is when we discuss this green and sustainable finance, we naturally tend to focus on large listed entities. I would say the Johnson or Unilever or Boeing of this world. But we tend to forget the rest of the world. So there are few bits and pieces. First of all, the private companies, but also the SMEs, which are not really addressed and which are the bulk of the economy. And more importantly as well is the emerging and developing economies. And I think this is really where it's important. The question is who is going to decide the rules for the world? I'm talking about the textbook for finance for the next 20 or 30 years. And it's a difficult question because it will basically say what is good and what is bad. And I can be very specific to give you an example. People talk a lot about diversity and inclusion. I can tell you this is a different meaning in every country. When you are in the US, people say it's about ethnic diversity. That's the first point. When you go to France, you are prevented from talking about ethnic diversity. So in 20 years, do you want the French Parliament to decide whether you discuss ethnic diversity or do you want S&P or BlackRock to decide? That's your question. And there are many more like this to come. And this is the emerging and developing economies which is dear to our heart on stage. The big issue is what type of norms will we set? And I have this conversation with many leaders in the past few months. Basically, I would say the Bobo of the world. The rich people say, okay, we want to have a cleaner world, a more social world. These are the rules. And they put the bar in effect too high for a number of countries. In that case, when people could tell me, it's like the Washington consensus 2.0 instead of having the textbook of the 1980s and 1990s, you will have a textbook on finance basically saying, yes, you have to do this, this and this, which is not reachable. And so people will say, no, but in today's world, there is an alternative to the Washington consensus. You have China, for instance. So you will have a real thing. You have no master of the world. So who will decide and the competition will be there? So are we capable of being inclusive with all the world and channeling the necessary money needed to go to the sustainable development goals? To go to climate? Or will we be too comfortable within the OECD country and say, yes, we know the rules and we protect ourselves. The alternative is as bad. The alternative is really to say, okay, the emerging and European economies are incapable of reaching our standards. So we'll have a two tier system, a premium impact, a premium green in advanced economy and a low cost green and low cost impact in developing economies. So let me conclude there. I think it's ample time that we work on our operating system. Again, to be simplistic, we are still in a world led by Friedman's mantra that the social purpose of business is to make profit, which is really irrigating the way we account for things, the way we pay for things, et cetera. I believe we have to move to a system where the objective of business is to create profitable solution to the problem of this planet and discuss them and the problem of its people. It's not to say profit is bad. Profit is legitimate when it has a purpose. And the question is, how do we get there? How do we open the hood? How do we take our two boats, put our hands in the engine when, as I said, there is no master of the world or whether there are too many willing master of the world. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you indeed Bertrand for your statement. Je vais dire un mot en français. Vous êtes friend speaking, mon cher Bertrand. Simplement pour vous dire que ce que vous avez dit sur la bulle verte, sur le verdissement artificiel était très intéressant. Et je dois dire très à la mode en ce moment si je lis les différents rapports qui sont faits. Vous êtes au coeur de ce financement sain de la transition verte et c'est vraiment bien ce que vous faites si je peux me permettre au passage.