 This is the beginning of the end of day one. I hope you've had many interesting presentations and conversations, I know that I have. So now for the closing of day one, we're gonna have two plenaries. On the first one, we're gonna hear from Sepora Berman, the chair of the possible full nonproliferation treaty initiative. She's gonna give an update on the latest developments and then this will be followed by a plenary panel from the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. So I'm just gonna give you the floor so we cut to the chase and we use a little time. After that, one second, after that we'll have a cocktail so I'll give more instructions later. Thank you so much. No pressure, I stand in between you and cocktails. Awesome. Thank you so much, Miguel and everyone who's organized this tremendous conference. At this conference, and in fact in the two prior, we've talked about the need to shift the social norm on fossil fuels. We've talked about the inordinate amount of influence that the fossil fuel companies have on climate policy, the need to constrain the social license of these fossil fuel companies. We talk about the production gap, about the need for transparency on who's producing what and how much and the need for equity as we manage the transition. When we started this conversation many years ago here in this same room, we didn't have the IEA 1.5 hats off to OCI and many people in the room to making sure that that happened. We didn't have the production gap report, we didn't have the global registry of fossil fuels to ensure accountability and transparency and we didn't have the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. So we didn't have supply side policies at a domestic level were few and far between. In fact, I can remember being at a climate policy conference in Canada in the early days of the supply debate not too many years ago when I was told by someone from the Prime Minister's office that it was rude that I kept talking about fossil fuels and the expansion of fossil fuels at a climate policy conference. We, many of you in this room have ensured great progress. However, the oil industry is still on track today to spend $103 million a day on the expansion over the rest of the next decade. The top 20 oil and gas companies are planning to spend $930 billion in fact on new fossil fuel developments between now and 2030. Last year, fossil fuel subsidies doubled and many of our climate leaders like Biden and Trudeau, of course, are planning new fracking and new oil drilling to actually get this done, to align production with climate goals and to manage a wind down. We need not to not just build the evidence, the policy proposals we need to build power, collective power, diversified power, power that cannot be ignored. The fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty initiative is designed to build power. It's a civil society initiative to engage and to connect new constituencies, faith leaders, health leaders, indigenous leaders, environmental groups, people from the finance community, corporate communities, from all over. Not just to activate and harness and connect that ground organizing with what needs to happen, but to build deep relationships, deep organizing to make us greater than the sum of our parts. To create a bold demand that is simple, that the public can understand, it is not a transition if we're growing the problem. Most people around the world are so confused right now about what needs to happen. We're gonna get to zero and beyond, but it's okay to keep drilling. Subsidies are bad, but only inefficient subsidies. Somehow we're going to abate fossil fuel development now. We don't just need to stop new oil drilling in the North Sea, in the tar sands, new fracking in British Columbia or Argentina, in the US. We know here in this room that we have to stop the expansion of fossil fuels globally, and we're running out of time. To shift the norm, to change the debate globally, we need a constant drum beat. And the first lesson of good campaigning is we're gonna have to repeat, repeat, and repeat. So what have we been doing? Let me back up and explain for a minute the genesis of the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, because in part it came from these meetings. The first meeting where we started discussing it, and I saw some of you in the room today, was in New York. Richard Dennis, I see you, Mark Campanale, Michael Lazarus, many of you were in that meeting when we discussed the need for new international mechanisms. We explored the Paris Agreement and tried to figure out where can supply-side policies fit in there. I think it was you, Richard, who brought up the Suave Declaration where Pacific governments called for a fossil fuel treaty in 2015, and we talked about building on it. Could we create a call for an entirely new treaty? We started studying the Landmine Treaty, the chemical weapons ban, nuclear non-proliferation. Many of us worked to create the global gas and oil network, so we were sharing strategies so we could understand what this industry is doing around the world and how to collectively fight back against it. Many of us met then in Norway the following year and created the Lefoten Agreement. The Lefoten Agreement was, in some ways, our first attempt to knit together all of these very diverse frontline fights and all of this incredible policy knowledge, to call for an end to expansion but on the principles of equity and fairness. Later that year, Peter Newell, who's here today and Andrew Sims, published the first peer-reviewed paper on the Fossil Fuel Treaty. We created a small working group to create a global treaty to stop the expansion of all fossil fuels and that working group got really kick-started in a huge way a couple of years ago when I was given the Climate Breakthrough Award and a group of foundations came to me and said, we're giving this award out for new climate strategies that are gonna help solve climate change globally, things that have never been tried before. We put the money from the Climate Breakthrough Award towards creating a small group of people who would work together to try and pull apart the idea of a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty and we also resourced core partners around the world, Power Shift Africa, Third World Network, many core partners who could start to do the research to identify the barriers to stopping expansion, both physical, economic and political. We built this initiative from the ground up. Today we have a communications initiative, a cities initiative, regional hubs and a directed network all over the world, a diplomatic engagement process and a research team. So in those two years, we've started to develop a political strategy. We've identified many research gaps that we've talked about here in this room and commissioned papers. We've developed a campaign and communication strategy around the world and connected those groups to each other and brought in new constituencies that previously just hadn't been talking about fossil fuels, many constituencies who wanted to work on climate change, peace and security groups, or faith and women's groups around the world, but they really couldn't get a grasp on it. What were they supposed to be for? They knew what they were against, but the climate policy debate had gotten so complicated that many organizations around the world who are, of course, we're all experiencing the impacts of the fires and the floods sweeping our planet, but they didn't know how to engage, what to call for, how to connect to the movement. We started our engagement process with Nobel laureates and scientists and academics, many of you. 101 Nobel laureates endorsed the concept of the fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, including the Dalai Lama. Shortly afterwards, we had 3,000 scientists, youth groups from around the world. We now have 1,750 civil society organizations from 105 countries that have endorsed the concept of the fossil fuel treaty and many of them are working on now or already working on or planning campaigns for the treaty. Youth groups from around the world have embraced the treaty and are campaigning all over the world. One of the incredible moments for me as an organizer was at Stockholm plus 50. When we ran to go to the Fridays for the Future strike, I was so excited to be in Stockholm at the strike and we were late because we were in a meeting with some governments and we got there and we're starting to unroll the treaty banner and we looked up and there was a huge banner, our logo hanging from the side and we still, I don't think know who posted it but that's when you know that a movement is bigger than you. 3,000 academics and scientists, over 500 elected officials now from 68 countries organizing under their own campaign, Fossil Free Future with the same concepts and pillars of the Fossil Fuel Treaty that we're coordinating with and cities around the world, the most recent Calcutta and the largest city in India, dozens and dozens of cities, I think we're now at 69 cities from around the world, most of them have endorsed the concept of the Fossil Fuel Treaty unanimously. Why this is important is because many other treaties were built from the ground up in this way, nuclear non-proliferation for example. In July, the Vatican endorsed the Fossil Fuel Treaty along with hundreds of faith groups from around the world. Most recently, last week, the World Health Organization endorsed the concept of the Fossil Fuel Treaty and last week, the first country put the treaty on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly, Vanuatu, it's been a wild ride these last two years. I think we've created a vehicle to amplify the good research and papers that many of you have published. In a sense, the network is a vehicle for delivery and amplification of these many diverse voices. All too often, we think that the facts, arguments will lead to change. If there's one thing I've learned in 30 years of designing advocacy campaigns is that change is the result of building power. Of course, the facts in a foundation of knowledge is essential, it's critical, but it's motivation and not education that leads to engagement and the power that leads to change. To motivate people we need to build trust, we need to show the potential to make change. Here's the bottom line, we can't compete money for money with the fossil fuel industry, their misinformation, their ad campaigns, their relentless lobby, and we can't afford to fight these fights one at a time. The treaty campaign is providing a range of organizing activities for people around the world. As we move forward, our job, I think, is to continue to erode the influence and access of the fossil fuel industry. We know that it's difficult. We know that the fossil fuel industry is still lobbying to engage in all of the processes to divine net zero, et cetera. We all need to understand here in this room that these companies will not design their own demise. So in the coming year, we will be building our network, expanding to other countries, adding more cities, more voices, and convening critical conversations, including participating in the call for a world commission on fossil fuels to further the participation and development of pathways to constrained supply. Of course, we have our critics, those that would say we don't need a treaty because we have Powering Pass Coal and the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. To be clear, we fully support governments creating peer-based alliances to move these issues forward. We celebrate them. It's absolutely critical, but it doesn't replace the need for a public campaign to build power or the need for a new treaty to manage the negotiations of how to ensure an equitable wind-down and international cooperation for a global just transition. We also hear people say that it's too big, that it's too bold, we don't have time for a new treaty. But here's the thing, we don't have time for more of the same. Shockingly, as we do this work to build momentum and power around the world, the surprising result, I think, is hope. In the words of the new petroleum papers by Jeff Dunbecky, he said, it's hopeful because you find that the problem isn't human nature. He said this week at his book launch, it's not about changing the behavior of 7 billion people like the industry often says, it's about holding a few dozen people and companies accountable. And I would add organizing millions around a simple and clear ask that changes the game. This work, as we heard this morning and saw this morning from Namonte, requires courage. Courage to stand up on the land, courage to stand up in the boardrooms, to call for something that is commensurate with the scale of the problem. The courage to call for something big, something bold, something new. But the great thing about courage, well, courage is contagious. Join us. Okay, good afternoon, everyone. I am Glada Lan from Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London. And I'm really delighted to welcome you to this session on leadership for a just phase out of oil and gas supply, the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. And through this panel, we're going to explore how this fledgling diplomatic initiative might evolve and hopefully how you all might engage with it. And we are really honored to have with us a panel who is not only knowledgeable but really actively involved in this initiative to tell us more about it. It includes two of the, two representatives of the member governments. Jape Helsted is Chief Advisor to Denmark's Climate Ministry. And we have Ed Sheriff, a Deputy Director of the Energy Division in the Welsh Government. So we also have with us Kat Ebru, who has come all the way from Ottawa and Kat is a Founder and Executive Director, or she is Founder and Executive Director of Generation Zero and also a Senior Associate for E3G as well as several other roles. And Sean Bradley, my former colleague at Chatham House who is now head of the Secretariat for the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, which began this year. So I think to begin with, could I just have a show of hands to see who had heard of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance before they came to the conference? Oh my goodness. Okay. So that's a surprise, actually. That's a surprise. Because I was gonna say, I was gonna say, okay, I'll give you the 101 but I'm still gonna give you the 101 because there might be some details that you don't know and I think it's probably good to save our panel from having to talk about how it was set up. Now as veterans of this conference, some of you will know that there have been calls for governments to commit to ending supply for some time and there's been mainly the emphasis was on coal and then as Sephora explained, it shifted to look at oil and gas as well, which has always been the more difficult part of the equation because of the way that oil and gas is very entwined with our everyday economies because it's in transport, because it's in materials and fertilizers and so on and because of the way it affects the global economy. You know, you see that from the Russia-Ukraine crisis at the current time. And of course, oil and gas comes with a set of vested interests that have lobbied on climate change in the past. So it was seen as a sort of a no-go area for many governments but things are changing rapidly and post-Paris in 2015, you saw a flurry of activity, the UN production gap report that showed that planned oil and gas production by governments around the world would go way beyond what would make 1.5 possible. And then you had the IA coming out with its net zero report showing that there was no need for further production under that scenario. And governments were committing to net zero packages where the sectors kind of sat uneasily and there were lots of questions from civil society in terms of how you would deal with that high-emission sector. So again, to this backdrop, you saw Denmark and Costa Rica get together and come forward with a plan to spearhead a small high-emission group who were willing to show climate leadership in this space by committing to phase out oil and gas and most specifically to set a Paris-aligned date for the phase out of oil and gas. So it was really a bit of a whirlwind. I think, you know, Jaffa will agree over whether it took place over one year, culminating in the announcement or the founding of Boga COP26. And all the conversations beforehand had taken place online, actually, because of COVID. And in the end, you had 11 governments joining and one as a friend and then later two more countries came in as friends. And I should explain the membership criteria was that there were core members who would commit to setting a Paris... They'd have to have had set a Paris-aligned date for phase out and also have stopped all new licensing or giving out concessions. But you could also join as a member, as an associate member, which would mean that you had shown some significant action to reduce production maybe in stopping foreign finance of oil and gas or of phasing out production subsidies at home, for instance. So do you want me to tell you who the members are? Or... OK, so I'll just run through them very quickly because I want to get started with the discussion. But the members are, of course, Costa Rica and Denmark, France, Quebec, Ireland, Wales, Sweden, California, New Zealand, Portugal, and then there are the three friends, Italy, Finland, and Luxembourg. And as you can see, this was quite a rich country-first initiative in terms of who should be taking responsibility for phase out first. Well, as you know, since then the world has changed quite dramatically as of February 2022. And we are in some sort of crisis where the economic narrative for energy is really focused on energy security at the moment. And I think this is going to colour the discussions that we have today in terms of what comes next for BOGA. And to begin, I want to turn to Jaffa to tell us a bit about why Denmark got involved and decided to spearhead this. And, you know, especially given the amount of tax revenue that Denmark has claimed over the years, you know, since the 70s from oil and gas. So, Jaffa, over to you. Yeah, thank you very much, Glada. I hope this works, seems to be the case. And no, thank you very much. And they're great to be here today. And great that so many people already know a little bit about BOGA. That's very encouraging. And I think, of course, this is a very informed crowd, normally sort of that's not the case that that many people will know about BOGA beforehand. So I'm just going to tell you a little bit about sort of the backstory from a Danish perspective and sort of where we are today. And then I'll try to keep it quite short so we can also have some time for Q&A. So, I mean, Sepuro spoke very eloquently about how things have changed over the last few years and that's certainly also been the case in Denmark. In 2019, we had a general election in Denmark that was labeled the climate election, because for the first time really climate change was front and center of the election campaign and one of the two or three topics that was really sort of the mostly debated during that campaign. And I think leading up to that election and after the election, there was a growing consensus amongst the Danish political parties that more needed to be done to address climate change. And that led to six months after the election, the agreement on a new climate law that would set the target of 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. For Denmark, something that's since been enshrined in law as well as the net zero target for 2050. And that's been followed by a flurry of different political agreements covering everything from energy to transport, agriculture and so on. Basically all of the major emitting sectors, which means that we're now well underway to deliver on that 70% commitment. So yeah, it's been a whirlwind and certainly things have been moving really quickly. One of the other things that changed after the election was sort of a more active role for Denmark in climate diplomacy. So for the first time, there was a whole of government strategy for international climate diplomacy adopted and climate change was also an integral part of updated foreign policy strategy and the strategy for development aid. And we appointed a new climate ambassador and several of our embassies were named what we call Green Frontline Mission with an enhanced mandate to promote climate diplomacy. So both domestically and abroad, we took a more sort of active and ambitious role. So yeah, basically based on the strong consensus in the mark that we have responsibility to act, but also given we are a very small country, 0.1% of global emissions, that the way we can make a difference is also by settling an example nationally that we can hopefully then get others to be inspired by. And I think the North Sea Agreement and the Danish oil and gas production is a good example of that. So I'll now come to sort of the core theme of today's discussion. So there was much debate after the election and also before actually about the eighth licensing round for oil and gas in Denmark and whether that should go ahead or not. In the end, a broad agreement was reached in parliament that it would not go ahead. So that's the North Sea Agreement from 2020 which set 2050 as the end date for Danish oil and gas production and also have had a commitment not to issue any new licensing rounds for oil and gas. And that was sort of a clear break from the previous North Sea policy in Denmark. So that was a really sort of a significant moment for Danish oil and gas policy. What was also included in the agreement was a decision that Denmark should take the lead internationally in promoting this agenda. And unfortunately we were able to pick it back on a lot of the good work that I'm sure many people in this room were doing already at that time and before that, both in civil society, other governments, philanthropy and so on. And we were able to sort of harness some of that work and bring together governments to form the beyond oil and gas lines and Glada mentioned sort of some of the process behind that and of course very pleased about our launch in Glasgow with 12 other governments including Wales of course and as clear as two additional governments joined as friends of Boga immediately after that. So what have we been up to since then? Mainly part of our work has been consolidating the alliance. We've established that Boga Secretariat and we were lucky enough, very lucky indeed to be able to recruit Sean to head up that secretariat and we're engaging with a wide range of partners to promote our mission. Of course, we have to acknowledge that the context has also changed quite dramatically since Glasgow with Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the need to find immediate replacement for oil and gas coming out of Russia, Russian oil and gas. But at the same time we recognize that that should not compromise our overall goals and the trajectory away from oil and gas in general. And to that topic we've just today put out a statement, Boga statement, emphasizing the need to accelerate the green transition but it also makes the important point that Boga is of course not contradictory to energy security. We understand the government's need to in the short term make sure that their populations have access to a reliable and affordable energy. So we're advocating for an orderly and managed phase out of oil and gas production that's essentially the measures there. I could say a million more things. I think I'll leave it there for now. Sure. I want to ask for a quick clarification. So when you ended new licensing but does that mean that the current licensees could produce more from the fields that they already have licenses over? Yeah, so the current licensees continue. So that was clear that we would not have any new licensing rounds with sort of offering up new licenses that way around but the current licensees continue under the rules that were set at the time when the license was given. Thanks. Great, well thank you so much and I'm sure a lot of you have questions so save them till the end. Ed, so what I wanted to ask you was as a subnational government that doesn't actually have any oil and gas production but has this long history of managing a transition out of coal, what do you think that becoming a member of Boga has to offer you as a government? So I think there are a couple of aspects that read. I think first is that kind of leadership on the international stage about how we can help support other nations in that transition. As you said, we had a very strong fossil fuel industry in Wales, very strong history in coal exploration and exploitation which we still have some legacy of that right now and it's really about how we sustainably transition away from that. And that's something that we as a Welsh government are very strongly committed to. So we have two opportunities really. One is through our powers that we have in terms of the licensing of new extraction in Wales both coal and petroleum. So we gained those powers from the government in London back in 2018. So we're quite new in terms of the ability to actually influence policy through the licensing and that kind of complements our existing local planning and environmental permitting powers that we've had in place since devolution. So what our ministers have been committed to which is something that we're using the Boga network and our outreach to do is to actually commit to no new extraction licenses for petroleum or coal in Wales. So our ministers have been absolutely clear through the publication of our policies both on petroleum in December 2018 or also our coal policy in 2020 that our ministers will not issue any new licenses for extraction in Wales for onshore areas. So those things that we're responsible for our ministers been clear that we're not going to issue any new licensing rounds for that. So we're not looking to extend extraction into new areas in Wales. So that's been a really key part of our messaging and some of our outreach in terms of how we're using the Boga networks as part of our engagement for that. And I think the other element that we're also stressing is how to manage that transition as well. So Wales has suffered very hard in terms of how that transition away from coal extraction was managed in some of our communities. And as our ministers have committed to no new extraction and trying to bring down the managed decline of fossil fuel extraction in use in Wales. We're also looking about how we can actually do a just transition and supporting industry both the existing industry into greener technologies and greener uses of their products. Because as was just described when you've got an existing license there's very little, there's no powers that we can have through the levers that we have as a Welsh government to actually stop extraction. So they've got existing licenses, they've got planning, they've got their permits, et cetera. But what we can do is try and influence at that business level around alternative uses which support our decarbonisation agenda. But then also to support the communities around the industry as well. So one of the things that we put a lot of effort into is actually bringing new alternative industries into those communities. And renewables is one of our key focuses. So we've got targets around renewable generation in Wales and how we can actually scale up renewable generation. And it's also in some of those communities that were heavily reliant on coal extraction where lots of the renewable opportunities within Wales sit particularly onshore wind. So we've got strong commitments through NetZero Wales which is our policy landscape for implementing our statutory NetZero Paris aligned agreements to actually scale up renewables and do that in a way which benefits communities and benefits those areas that were heavily reliant on fossil fuel extraction. So they've been some of our key levers and some of the key areas that we've been pushing through and trying to support the messaging around BOGA but also through the Powering Pass Coal Alliance which Wales is also a member of. I think we've got a really important role I think in demonstrating how subnational governments who may have different policy aims and ambitions to their national governments can also become members of organizations and show that leadership. So in recent weeks, I think some of the differences between our approach in Wales and the approach taken by the government in London particularly around things like fracking. So there's been ending the moratorium on fracking in England but our ministers have come out very strongly straight away and said that will not apply in Wales and we've been able to gain cross-party support for that position in the Welsh Parliament. So even the Welsh Conservatives have been clear and come out against their UK Conservative Party against fracking in Wales. So I think having that strong political leadership and being clear about our aims and ambitions is filtering down locally within Wales but also hopefully inspiring and motivating others of national governments about how being part of organizations such as BOGA and really demonstrating your climate credentials and what your ambitions are around phasing out fossil fuels, how that can function within a national context as well. So I'm hopeful that through our outreach and through our international leadership we're helping to inspire other subnational governments in their role that they can have to achieve the aims that we're all trying to, that we'll set ourselves. Thank you so much, Ed. I think that's really useful to understand how you're using it to strengthen your position and also your story draws attention to the role that BOGA wants to play. It's not just kind of home for these commitments but also practical in terms of creating this community of practice whereby the governments are meant to support each other but also a wider group that may just be interested in learning how that kind of transition takes place, how you find the jobs, how do you find the new industries. So I guess finally I wanted to turn to Kat who works with an array of organizations in the climate space, including the fossil fuels nonproforation treaty. She also sits on Canada's net zero advisory body. So I guess I wanted to ask you how you see BOGA in the context of the goals of the climate movement more generally. Sure thing. Thanks, Glada. And yes, why I am here is in part because I've been a part of the community that's hoped and dreamed of a first movers club on oil and gas phase out for many years and really welcomed Denmark and Costa Rica's leadership and those who founded the Alliance last year with open arms. And also because I come from Canada and as we have already heard, it's a place where these kinds of conversations are really challenging to have. When I was appointed to Canada's net zero advisory body, a member of parliament stood up in the house and said my appointment to that body was a threat to national security because I thought that we needed to phase out fossil fuels in order to combat climate change. And so it just really goes to show how deep the misalignment is amongst governments, amongst many governments around the world. Even those who are very committed, at least rhetorically, to meeting their climate commitments. So why did we as civil society want something like this to exist? Why was this a vision that we had? Well, I would say that the first reason is because it's critical to pull some of those diplomatic levers that we have at our disposal to push for changes in the kind of norms of how governments do business on energy and how they talk to each other about energy. And so you've actually already heard some great examples about how members of BOGA are already doing that, pushing back against some of the norms around framing of energy security, for instance, that we have. And I actually wanna congratulate Wales for the work that you did to push back against some new trade deals being struck to develop and expand new oil and gas fields. And it's critical that we see governments standing up against those kinds of activities. And so that was one of the first reasons that we were excited about BOGA. But perhaps less obviously, the other reason is because the international climate regime has really been a hiding place for fossil fuels, for most of its existence. The UNFCCC, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change doesn't mention fossil fuels and most treaties that fall under the convention haven't directly mentioned fossil fuels. In fact, we got the first ever mention of fossil fuels in the decision text from a conference of parties to the UNFCCC last year, over 30 years since that body has existed. And I'll talk a little bit more about that later because there's some good lessons for us to learn there. So we needed in that space something that would pull the veil back, that would take away those hiding places. And BOGA really does just that. It says, we cannot talk about climate ambition in the absence of talking about the phase out of fossil fuels. And that is such a powerful statement to make. It's shocking how powerful a statement that is to make within the international regime that thinks about climate change. It's also a very high ambition coalition. So you haven't heard a list of 50 governments that have signed on to BOGA and that's on purpose. That's because BOGA has a very high bar for entry. And that makes it quite different from other multilateral initiatives that exist out there, including I must say the PPCA which has done really great work but where we've seen some real ambiguity in the membership of like, when are we trying to phase out cool by exactly? So it's critical that BOGA continues to maintain that high bar for membership because we are really trying to shift the understanding out there of what real ambition, what real climate leadership looks like. So Glada, you asked me to give you some perspective on how it feels that BOGA fits into the kind of ecosystem of change that's working out there. So I'm gonna, to keep my time as short as possible, stick to three main points. The first is, I think BOGA has a real role to play in ensuring the integrity of the concept of net zero as a milestone to holding warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Why that's so essential is because net zero has been taken to mean a whole host of things in the circles that use that phrase. And quite dangerously, it has become detached both from the concept of holding warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius and also from the concept of an orderly and just transition away from fossil fuel dependence. And so we're now seeing the concept of net zero which was born out of the science of 1.5 degrees Celsius being taken to justify the status quo of fossil fuel production. It is being used to allow for a whole bunch of nefarious false solutions and back doors. As Zepora said in her introductory remarks, right? Or in her not introductory remarks, in her keynote remarks. These weasel words, as I called them last year at COP26, like unabated, inefficient. Of course there are technical definitions that we all know what those words mean, but predominantly they're politically used to undermine the integrity of net zero as a real solution, as a real viable pathway to meeting our climate goals. In the stranded assets panel that I attended earlier, someone said, there's a blind spot around petrochemicals in climate policy. And I would say in actuality and much climate policy, there's an open door to petrochemicals. And that's thanks to the incredibly effective lobbying of a very powerful, well-resourced industry, the fossil fuel industry. And so if net zero is going to actually help us hold warming to 1.5 degrees and protect those most vulnerable around the world, we need it to mean something real and BOGA can bring real meaning to net zero. Two, we need to be building really effective constituencies for bold, ambitious, and timely climate action. And that means that it also has to be durable climate action. What for me, the two elements of ambitious and durable climate action that I think have been paid a little less attention in the past, but where we're seeing a lot more attention being paid to them now, are around just transition and accountability. So we've heard, I think, a lot of talk about just transition and it is, of course, extremely relevant to oil and gas workers in particular as we move toward meeting our climate goals. But I'm talking about just transition in the kind of larger sense of the phrase in the like, how do we move from economies that don't work for people in the planet to economies that do work for people in the planet? And how do we do that while taking care of communities and paying attention to global equity? So doing it in a just and equitable manner, both domestically at home and around the world. And I think Boga has already brought that conversation to the fore in a really powerful way. And it joins the myriad efforts that people are using to continue those conversations around just transition. What do I mean about accountability? Well, I mean, how do we actually track the action that we're taking on climate change and make sure that it's adding up to what it's supposed to, that it's delivering on our climate commitments. The past 10, 15 years of most diplomatic energy around climate change has been very focused on target setting, which is important. We need those long-term goals that tell us where we're gonna go. It hasn't been as focused on implementation, on what are the frameworks, the architecture that we need to make sure we actually deliver on those commitments. And I really see Boga as a platform to allow member countries to talk about what that architecture looks like, to share lessons learned, to share challenges, and to build some of that multilateral architecture that we need for the international cooperation on that front because no one country can really go this alone. Earlier, again, in another panel where we were talking about effective climate change narratives, someone said that the fossil fuel industry can perpetuate this narrative that climate change is all about individual responsibility. And of course, they do do that to remove themselves from culpability. But the other reason they do that is to divide us amongst ourselves, to say climate change is an impossible task for you to face because you have to do it all by yourself. And so it is initiatives like these that say, hey, we're gonna do this together. This is a joint problem that we're gonna manage collectively, help break through that narrative. And then finally, number three, we need international cooperation, again, as you heard from Zepp so effectively, to ensure an orderly and just wind down a fossil fuel assets. But we also need international cooperation to make sure that those countries that are looking to meet their development needs and their energy access needs can do that without deepening their dependence on fossil fuels. And so I think that's really where the conversation is gonna go to next. Earlier, I said I'd return to the decision text debate last year at COP26. Here's one of the big lessons that we can learn from that. That debate divided global North and global South countries because global South countries were pushing for the decision text to include oil and gas. And global North countries were only willing to allow that decision text to talk about coal. Again, another effort, another narrative that's out there to divide and conquer. As long as we're not able to have a conversation about the wind down of fossil fuels that is completely aligned with and prioritized and led by a conversation about just an equitable development and building out of energy access, we're gonna keep losing the goodwill and trust between countries that really need to be figuring out these wicked problems together. And so I think where we need to move to next, and I'm excited to know that Boga is having some of these conversations and maybe you'll tell us a little bit more about that next, Sean, is okay, well, how does Boga be a part of the solution here? How can it be a part of advancing some of the thought leadership as well as the dollars on the table to make that transition possible and to make a new paradigm for development a reality, one that isn't about extracting and exporting fossil fuels as so many development paradigms are now. And then I'll end on this note. I think really it has to be about what we're building, not just about what we're winding down. And so I'm so excited to see with the latest Boga release today, such a focus on massive investments in renewables and energy efficiency, because it's absolutely true that's where we need to be going. Thank you so much, Kat. And I think that leads us really nicely into what Sean's gonna tell us because Sean has been very busy with the secretariat from what I can gather. So tell us, what have you been up to? What's been happening since, was it June? When was it actually? June? Yeah, since June. So yeah, there's busy, every time I reach busy, there's been another level of busyness that comes in above it. I hope it, yeah, I hope we're nearing the limits. So first of all, thank you to all the organizers. I mean, Glader and I have sat here at every one of these conferences so far running plenary sessions, talking about, usually about producer country issues. It is such a pleasure to be back in this hall and to see so many familiar faces. So yeah, a huge thank you and just really, really glad to be here. I will mind for time, but I will try and expand on a few of the recent developments that Yepe referenced and just frame up the discussion a little bit and follow on from as well what Kat was saying about how we work, how we move forwards on this next phase. So progress in latest news and some of our strategic priorities and next steps. And as I just referenced, there is such an incredible wealth of experience in this room. It would be great to open up that discussion about how we work together, both with the CSO community, of course, as Kat said, Boga is one part of a much broader ecosystem of initiatives and we all have to understand what role we play and work together in this, but also with the wider policy and research community because so many of the issues that you're working on and here talking about today, we're also considering at a government level. So where there is thinking that can be applied and tested that can help us unlock some of these really sticky challenges, we want to work with you. We want to hear your thoughts and suggestions. So first of all, on Boga's progress and latest news, what have we been up to? There has been a huge amount going on behind the scenes in the past three months from securing the funding and beginning hiring the team for the secretariat and for a secretariat that will be able to support current and prospective Boga members in these discussions and that can be really visible and active in the community to working with the co-chairs and the members to establish this tempo of meetings both at the working level and the strategic level that can allow us to begin building the diplomatic capacity that we need in order to deliver on these objectives. And then of course embarking on a series of working sessions on particular themes that will really support Boga members in the practical delivery of their commitments. So this is the community of practice concept which I'll come to in a moment. And we have also been stepping up our public engagement. We were quiet a little bit through Q1 and Q2 in part for capacity reasons. The secretariat was only established in June in part for strategic reasons because obviously all of this has been playing out against the backdrop of Russia's invasion of Ukraine which obviously I think for all of us in the supply side community forced a pause and a rethink of the messaging and the top lines and how we move forwards in this moment. In June, we had our first public engagement so we were able to convene delegations at the Bonn Climate Change Conference. And we had a great moment there I think to just reintroduce updates with speeches from myself, Yippee, France, Sweden, others and the announcement of two new friends and a moment just to engage and update the UNFCCC community and restart a lot of conversations with countries that are maybe not yet members but that are interested in the top lines and the themes that we're working with and in how BOGA can support them over time. Now obviously as I said all of this is happening against that backdrop of conflict in Ukraine, of an energy crisis, of soaring gas prices and inflation and unmitigated cost of living crisis and of course the impacts of COVID and supply chain disruptions which are still playing out. So as you can imagine through Q2 one of the priorities was really refining the messaging here and to be very, very frank, if there was ever a moment for a supply side initiative to falter, that was really it but to their credit the members really doubled down on their commitments and our engagement at UNGA last week, the statement that Yippee mentioned, if you haven't seen it, it's on the news and events section of the website, please check it out. That recent engagement, the statement really reflect these top lines and there are three real key messages to communicate here. The first is really around BOGA being for climate and energy security. So that means of course engaging with gas prices, the cost of living inflation as well as those longer term macroeconomic questions about how to rapidly reduce dependency and exposure to the oil and gas sector and framed correctly, BOGA is something that your finance minister and your foreign minister will support, not just your climate and your energy minister. So it's building that kind of cross government vision of why it makes sense to rapidly move beyond oil and gas. The second point is really around appropriate short and long-term measures, responses to the crisis and that of course means reiterating at the political level, no new licenses, no new exploration, these responses are not the answer here. They will do nothing to address energy security or affordability and then in fact, accelerating the transition beyond oil and gas, massively scaling efficiency, renewables and getting economies onto that glide path, really clearly planning for an orderly managed decline of the oil and gas sector in a way that mitigates price volatility and supports predictability and planning. This speaks to something that I think Christoph was asked in the first session or responded in the first session, this question of how fast you can wind down oil and gas infrastructure compared to how rapidly you have to replace and invest in replacements, alternatives, it's a critical question. And third and finally, the most important point I think and Kat, you just referred to this, is really elevating the beyond part of beyond oil and gas. I think in the current context, narratives based on risk really don't cut through in quite the same way and in many ways for developing countries, they never did when there are urgent economic development access to energy needs. So presenting that positive story in a really compelling alternative vision for producer countries, particularly for developing countries, those at an early stage of production or even exploring, this is really critical. There's a window of opportunity here, but the beyond part of beyond oil and gas is gonna have to do a little bit more heavy lifting. And that means thinking about the national vision and what that pathway beyond oil and gas looks like. And that is something that many colleagues in the room who have worked with producer country groups over the years know plenty about and would love to hear your thoughts in conversation. So on to Anger. So in New York last week, alongside the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, Boga brought together almost 25 leaders, including representatives from producer countries, not yet members in some cases, at the ministerial and ambassador level, presidents of foundations, senior management of MDBs and private sector initiatives to discuss exactly this, the beyond part of beyond oil and gas and how Boga as a community can really begin to mobilize the practical support that is required, particularly for developing countries to engage in this discussion. And as I mentioned a moment ago, and as I also just mentioned, Boga released its first formal statements, which emerged out of those early discussions with the membership in response to the crisis. And really the aim here, as I said, is just to reiterate what is an appropriate response that joint climate and energy security line. And to put very bluntly, to counter some of the messages that we've been hearing about reopening exploration and new licensing rounds, that European credibility gap that has emerged a little bit for want of a better term, and to lend some political support to those voices that have taken really bold positions here. And the UN Secretary General stands out among one of them. Where are the political voices coming forwards and supporting that line? So this is an important contribution to that, in addition to reframing what true energy security looks like. So looking ahead, obviously, at the political level, developing Boga's capacity to deliver statements and interventions, some of which will be public, some of which many of which won't, because they'll be feeding into UNFCCC processes, G7, G20 dialogues, EU dialogues. Developing that capacity is obviously a strategic priority, so that Boga can really play that role in helping shape the narrative at an international level. That's the political leadership piece. There's also a very real and urgent practical leadership piece. So building that community of practice that can really help governments turn ambition into action. And when we say a community of practice, we really mean creating that safe space for government to government learning, peer learning, so that there can be an honest and frank exchange between members, between members and prospective members, with different parts of the international architecture, energy and economic architecture, with the relevant parts of the research in the CSO communities, with the aim of convening expertise and support in response to government need. And there are three areas of engagement where we're actively working and building out the beginnings of work programs and that I would really flag to you as potential areas for engagement. And the first is around legislation and regulation for phase out and the potential for legal challenges against governments that move to shut down over time in an orderly way the oil and gas sector. So from international climate treaties, not climate treaties, I should correct myself, international treaties that constrain phase out, such as the Energy Charter Treaty, to climate litigation equally that might help accelerate action in some jurisdictions. How will these factors drive or constrain government commitments and efforts to phase out oil and gas in an orderly just manner? The second area is really around economic costs and benefits of phase out. So this is macroeconomic planning, engaging with central banks, finance ministries, the IMF, the network for green in the financial system. How do we begin to really understand the costs of phase out? But also the benefits in terms of avoided carbon lock-in, avoided stranded assets and the benefits, the potential of climate resilient sustainable sectors. And it's crucial that we do this to get beyond this energy, this narrow kind of sectoral energy transition framing that for so many years we've discussed these issues in and get onto a whole economy footing and start thinking about those sticky issues around petrochemicals lock-in and whole economy lock-in. How do we support structural long-term economic transitions and what is the role of clear signalling around the oil and gas sector in driving this forwards? And then the very final area is just around just transition. So supporting transitions that really deliver socio-economic benefits. This was always important. It's even more important in the current socio-economic context and of course in the context of climate politics right now and the importance of other discussions that are taking place alongside fossil fuels and phase out discussions. So with that, we are busy developing a community of practice with a view to building on the best available expertise and really delivering on bogus ambitions. Please take today as the start of a discussion and as we develop the work plan through 2023 and beyond, we would love to hear from you and your thoughts and suggestions. So yeah, very much looking forward to the discussion. Thank you. Thank you so much. So I have that you feel you've got some understanding of what the Alliance is about and we would love to hear your comments, your questions or anything you'd like to ask our brilliant panel. I see I'll take maybe a couple together. I see a gentleman there. My Jibblondil University of Warwick. The comparison was already made with the powering past coal alliance. I was just wondering one of the core critiques or issues that I had with that was that countries were allowed to sign up to it that either never had coal in their power generation makes or had already phased out coal. So I was wondering how this alliance would deal with this type of or a similar type of critique of countries signing up to the initiative or the Alliance that never actually had any oil or gas production at all. Good question. Kemper, would you like to say anything about that? Yeah, sure. No, thank you. That's a good question and it's something that we've been grappling with in Bokeh as well. And I think it's about striking the right balance. So of course we want to have some strong commitments that governments should live up to to join the alliance, but it's a mix right now of the membership. So it's both countries such as Denmark that has had for many years oil and gas production, but it's also countries that has had maybe some exploration or something like that but never had any real production. And I think the core thing about that is that core members would then commit to not going into oil and gas. And we also have some of our core members that even though they don't have production, even have legislated for not having it. So that's the commitment we would expect. So but it's a balance because yeah, of course we also want to sort of as John said have a community of practice, but also show that there is a moral support and there is a momentum behind this agenda. So yeah, we invited every government that wants to join us to do that, but of course we have some core commitments that we expect them to live up to. Thanks, yeah, but I think in some cases countries do face pressures, don't they? To explore and develop resources and it might enable them to stand up to those pressures. Kat? I mean, I think it's worth actually in giving you guys comments, just reflecting on what's happened in Costa Rica in the last year. So we had a change of government in Costa Rica in the last year. One of the co-chairs of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance and Costa Rica is one of those countries that has reserves but has not yet developed them. And with a change of government as always come a change in attitude and potentially a change in policy. And despite there being different priorities in this government in Costa Rica than in the last one, it's been really encouraging to see that they've stuck it out in BOGA. And that's kind of one of the purposes that I see of an alliance like this is to not only create that community of practice, have that dual conversation about how countries that have existing production wind that down in an orderly way, countries that have reserves avoid developing those reserves while still meeting their economic and energy access priorities. And to also create a home that can hopefully help bolster continuity even as governments change. So I think that's maybe something else to consider as well. Thanks, Cat. Just to add actually, just on the point within the UK context around fracking, so our membership of BOGA has been really, really powerful in terms of our opposition to exploration of fracking within Wales. So we've been able to stand strong against any cause of that within Wales despite the wider UK context, pressing for exploration within parts of the UK. So I think at that point around being a signal there to be very strong against exploration of new resources, it's been a key one for us. Thanks, Ed. I hope that answers your question. Lady, just there. Yeah, my name is Ines. I work for SCI Oxford. And I have a question on the accountability in the place of civil society in BOGA. The reason why I'm asking, I want to ask the question that I'm about to ask is, I come from France where a few years ago we had a very interesting experiment where we had a civil consultation on climate change. So the government picked randomly a panel of about a hundred people who had been selected to represent the population in terms of age, in terms of income, in terms of rural versus urban. And these people who knew nothing about climate change and climate policy they were trained on those issues and then they were asked to design a set of measures for the government. And what they came up with was extremely ambitious and what was I think reflective of what I see should be beyond oil and gas in the future. But France, which is apparently a member of BOGA, only adopted I think five or 10% of those measures and far from the most ambitious ones. So I want to understand for the members of this alliance, how are they held accountable? Is there a space for, let's say, civil society to hold them accountable? Because as much as I appreciate the good intention I don't trust, even my own government, which is supposed to be democratic, that they will uphold what they promise and especially going beyond just stopping oil and gas exploitation. Thank you, Ines. And I think that plays to some of the sentiments Cat was expressing. Sean, I'll hand that one to you. I'm going to explain the dialogue that we have and then Cat will also do that and you can see how close the two versions are. No, look, I mean, the concept for BOGA was grounded in civil society. Civil society has been key to building the momentum and to moving this discussion forwards and also to the huge success and the launch that we had at COP. So finding and working with, establishing that constructive role for civil society both as a partner in delivering BOGA's key aims and ambitions and also as a constant pressure to hold members to account and to ensure that scrutiny that you would expect any government-led alliance to face is really important and central. So we have a regular dialogue and a mechanism between us, which is evolving all the time but that is designed to allow the free flow of information and coordination between government, secretariat, civil society and to make sure that we are working together wherever possible and that concerns are raised early and addressed. We are open and available to the wider civil society community. I had the pleasure of joining a town hall meeting with the CSO groups two weeks ago now. Was it? Yeah, it feels like a lifetime ago, but two weeks ago. And again, just engaging in an open discussion and hearing concerns and responding to them and taking them away and working through with the members if there is more that we can be doing in certain areas. And those discussions have led to a CSO coalition paper that was published last Wednesday that was led by OCI, it's on OCI's website which really calls on Boga for continued ambition, rightly so, and that lays out 10 civil society recommendations for the Alliance, many of which are great and we're already doing something to those ends. Others that go beyond where we're at right now but that's precisely the role of civil society and that's the value of this dialogue. So no, that engagement is there, is evolving and I think it's a really constructive force in the Alliance's work. Thank you, Kat, do you want to add to that? I mean, like those of you who are involved in civil society campaigns on this front will know that we give praise sparingly and even when we do, we back it up with some pretty effective watchdogging. So for sure, lots of interest in celebration of Boga in the CSO community but also lots of desire to make sure that Boga delivers all those great things that I said we think it can deliver and an effort to work with the Boga secretariat and the members because we have established a great working relationship but not to the expense of being able to call out contradictions when they happen and then the other thing I'll say is that this is one piece of the puzzle, right? Like not every Boga, being a Boga member doesn't mean you have the best climate plan in the world. So there's still a bunch of work to be done to improve action across all countries because really there's, I can't really name very many nation states that have the kinds of climate plans that we need to solve this crisis. And am I right in saying that the criteria is designed to be a kind of a ratchet mechanism as well, I mean, if you were an associate member you would want to aspire to be a core member. So do we have, oh yes, I see now, long now you are becoming very brave. There is a gentleman in the middle there. Let's take three at a time because we just have about eight minutes left. Still raise your hands because keep your hands up and then I just see you there. Okay, please introduce yourself. Hi, this is Gregory Trencher from Kyoto University. So I was one of the persons that raised the hands and said, yeah, Boga, I know them. But then listening to the conversation they realized how little I know. So my question is a bit based on my ignorance but I'm wondering how much emphasis you also put on consumption of oil and gas because if you think about many countries in Asia like Korea, Singapore, Japan, we're massive importers of these substances. So if these countries committed to accelerate their phase out, you can just imagine the effect that would have globally. And then we have also European countries, Germany. Look at the mayhem that's been caused right now with the shortage of supply. So my question is not based, I'm not discounting the value of looking at supply because that's why we're all here. But I'm just wondering, yeah, so the powering past coal alliance, they also looked at consumption of calling electricity sector. So I'm just wondering, yeah, what consumption of these oil and gas, what part that has in your conversation, thanks. Thanks so much. Here's a judgment at the end there. Thank you. I really wanted to try this gadget first. Yeah, I'm Salah. I'm with the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center. This is a short disclaimer. My question is not related to the fact that my institution has petroleum in its title, not to the fact that I'm based in Saudi Arabia. So my question is, why Boca? Why not BCA for beyond coal or beyond fossil fuel, BFFA, for example? A bit puzzled by the emphasis on oil and gas in specific rather than coal because if we proceed by order of priority, coal should come first. So why is this emphasis on oil and gas rather than coal for which we have economically viable and already available technologies for substitution rather than oil and gas? Thank you. Great, thanks Salah. And Paul at the front, I see your hand up. This way. Thank you. Paul Eakin's UCL, really interesting stuff. And I found myself thinking kind of around the political science and the political economy of some of this. I'm asking myself the question, why should countries join Boca? What's in it for them? It's obviously the right thing to do but the right thing to do is it doesn't cut much ice in political circles that I know. And so I kind of, it picks up a bit on your last comments, Kat, about the importance of the efficiency in the renewable slot. And a bit too on the other comments we've heard about the importance of the consuming countries because overwhelmingly what we need to do for both producer and consumer countries is show that you don't need this stuff in order to develop that. I mean, until we show that, we're not gonna make headway because that's what countries want. However they define development, they gotta, however they define it, they gotta decide they don't need this stuff. And I'm just wondering whether Boca is planning to introduce incentive mechanisms that will actually give, you know, international finance is high on the agenda and perhaps international finance should be prioritized for countries that are either on the producer or the consumer side are Boca countries that have actually said, we really are getting away from this and we are not going to alert because I think, you know, obviously I think your members are fantastic and the fact they've taken this initiative but I want to see it go much beyond the kind of niche club that it is at the moment. Thanks, Paul. So I think that's all the questions we're gonna have time for. So save yours until the break but I'm going to just remind you guys of what they are. So there's one about demand side. So what about on the consumption side? Are we talking about power plants as well? Are we talking about other elements of that supply chain and the consumption side? Why all the gas and not include it along with coal as fossil fuels all together and the political economy, what's gonna be in it for these countries? Is there other plans for some major international finance packages that can really persuade more countries to join? There's a lot there. So what I might do is just go to each of you for a final comment if that's okay and you pick which one you want to respond to. And we will... I love that. Personally, I'd get stuck. We will start with Ed. Oh, it's always better to go first. I can leave all the difficult ones to my colleagues. So I think I'll pick up a point around the demand side. So the fact that I said there are no new extraction is part of our kind of net zero ambitions and net zero strategies. I think that was one policy out of 123. So this very much sits alongside a whole range of demand measures in there that cover all the sectors from power generation in Wales where we're looking to decarbonise the wider power sector, transport sector, industry, including agriculture, households. So we've got a whole raft of measures there that sit alongside our position around extraction to try and manage the decline of demand for oil and gas as well. So I think hopefully we've got a very... Out of those remaining 122 policies, a lot in there which focus on that. So our extraction policies are just one component of that, really. So from our perspective, we're very much keen on that managed transition on the demand side as well and looking across all of those sectors and clear commitments around those. So I think I've very much done an easy one from a Welsh perspective. Thank you. Hand over them. Who wants to pick up some of the more difficult ones? Cat. Okay, we're going in order. Cool. Maybe I'll try and combine the demand question with your very insightful comments on how we shove that development paradigm by saying, like, I think one of the greatest misfortunes that we've experienced in the last few decades and I think that there are a lot of contributing factors to this, not only the fossil fuel industry but also like neoliberalism writ large. I'm an activist. It's just like a profound lack of imagination. Like I think our imaginations have just become so constrained. So where do we see this practically speaking? We see this in the failure of so many governments to engage in effective industrial planning or strategy as we imagine a world transitioning away from fossil fuels. So again, speaking from a Canadian context, I would say arguably the last successful example that we have of industrial strategy in Canada is our oil sands. Those didn't happen by accident. That was like actually a scientific miracle that happened because of a concerted effort by multiple levels of government to invest in the sector, to grow it, to find scientific solutions, to grow it, to grow communities around it. We need that to be happening for the industries that are going to provide jobs and prosperity into the future in a climate safe economy. And it's like our governments just don't know how to do it anymore. And I think that the fossil fuel industry really makes use of that very well because you see that even many of the solutions that we are starting to talk about in the climate space are being provided by the fossil fuel industry. So I think that's a big one. And the other one is how do we practically scale up the renewable energy supply chain? And how do we remove some of the barriers to renewable energy like broken regulatory processes in countries? Now this is, I mean, I know many of you are working on this. So maybe not, this is maybe a little too technical for some audiences that I speak to. But there are probably more renewable energy in the pipeline in terms of asking for permits in the US right now than there is coal energy that's already online. In other words, we could replace all coal-fired electricity in the US right now with the renewable energy projects that are waiting for a permit. So obviously some of that permitting process is about environmental integrity and whatnot, but it's also just a function of a regulatory process that isn't working very well anymore and that has lost the public trust. So I think a part of the answer too is restoring trust in some of those institutions, redefining them to meet some of our goals, and then having like a serious conversation about how we scale up the global capacity for to introduce major renewables across the world. I would add to that on the demand side, you know a lot more work needs to go into buildings and infrastructure and making it as passive and efficient as possible. For sure. Yeah, bye. Thank you, and thanks for the questions. To my mind, and if I've understood them correctly, they go a little bit to the same point in that why isn't BOGA doing more or taking on other sectors or taking on consumption as well. And to a certain extent we are. So I mean, we're talking about the phase out of fossil fuels and that goes both for consumption and production. I think what we also sort of identified with BOGA was a specific niche that needed to be filled within sort of the international climate architecture. And therefore we specifically made it about the oil and gas supply because there were other alliances and initiatives that dealt with, for example, coal or dealt with the consumption side as well. But that's not to say that they don't intertwined and don't depend on one another, of course they do. So certainly it's part of our conversations and as Sean was also saying, the community of practice. So how do you do this in practice? If you wanna phase out oil and gas production, then what needs to replace that? Both on the production side but also on the consumption side because I don't think it'd be attractive for governments speaking to your point, Paul, to say that we're gonna abandon our own production and we're just gonna import our needs for oil and gas. That's not an attractive proposition. So and that's not the policy in Denmark either. So I think, of course, they're intertwined but also a need for BOGA to stay on message. And just finally on why should countries join BOGA? It's a good question and one we've posed ourselves as well. And I think sort of to me, the one thing that stands out is you need to start planning for this. If we're serious about a 1.5 degree world, if we're serious about bringing down consumption of oil and gas, if you're a big oil and gas producer, you need to start planning for this. You need to start figuring out what are you gonna do with your sector, how can you diversify and how can you invest in the technologies of tomorrow? So I think that's probably the strongest argument I've found so far but very happy to hear your thoughts on that one. Thanks very much, Jepa. And we are gonna, I don't wanna keep you from cocktails. So I'm gonna give Sean just one minute to respond on internet. Well, first actually- What if we're not answered? Why oil and gas? Why oil and gas are not coal as well? And international finance. International, okay. And I was gonna say something on Paul's question about why as well very quickly. Why oil and gas and not coal? Oil and gas and coal have fundamentally different footprints in terms of rent, domestic dependencies, use in domestic energy systems. There is already a PPCA. Coal is a much, much higher percentage of coal is produced and used in the same country. The coal experts in the room can give us the exact data point there. Oil is much more dispersed and so it requires a very different approach as is gas, a much higher rent. So that's the why. And also because nothing like this existed, there was no supply side, a government-led initiative for oil and gas. On leadership and why, why would countries or sub-nationals join BOGA? I think there's a leadership piece which is of course, demonstrating leadership at the international level and having an active role in shaping the rules and the way that oil and gas phase out will be addressed in international dialogues, whether that's through the UNFCCC, through EU Dialogues, G7, G20, having an active stake in that discussion and having partners in that is important. It's also really important that at home we are normalizing the discussion of what leadership on oil and gas phase out looks like. At the domestic level, what is robust public financial management? Is it responsible to continue opening up new licensing rounds and deepening the problem? Or is it responsible to start planning for and getting the economy onto that glide path early? So positioning this as something that can really demonstrate leadership and responsible management of the economy. And then there's the accessing support piece. So we've already spoken a little bit about peer-to-peer learning and a government community of practice, that safe space for governments where we can share lessons and accelerate progress. And then there's also this broader piece, particularly on the beyond oil and gas and on supporting developing country engagements, on how do we begin to mobilize the constituent parts of the system to really address this problem? Because we have scaling up of renewables. We have policy and technical advice around the oil and gas sector. We have the different relevant pieces, but they are not working together in the way that they need to, to resolve this problem and to remove the biggest structural barrier to transition, which in many jurisdictions is the oil and gas sector. So there's a very clear case there for mobilizing those parts of the system. And we're confident that BOGA can play a useful role in that. Was there another question? No. No, that was it. I'm gonna stop there. I'm sorry. With that, I would love to thank you all for staying the course and for posing tough questions. Please do find our guys after this and ask them more. And to thank our brilliant panel for sharing their expertise, their experience and taking some trouble to come and be here with us today.