 umbrella. Green New Deal. And we are excited to have four presenters tonight. Well, tonight, Europe time, midday here in Washington. We're going to start with Ann Pettifor and I'm going to put people's biographies in the chat. And then we're going to continue with Dushan Payovic and then Asad Rehman and Clara Bouzhan. In terms of the ground rules for our event today, each of the presenters is going to talk for approximately 15 minutes, maybe less. I will remind them when they get to the one minute left mark with this very sophisticated reminder. If you have questions and we're going to keep the presenters to their 15 minutes so that we will have time to answer your questions, I'll ask you to put them in the Q&A so that we can track them that way. If you have comments you'd like to make in the chat, we'd welcome those as well. And I'll put some links in the chat as well to the webpage for our Global Just Transition Project and a link to the next event that we'll be having next month on South Korea and South Korea's Green New Deal. So I'd like to start with Ann Pettifor and as many of you know Ann Pettifor is a political economist and author and public speaker. She's the director of policy research in macroeconomics which is prime or prime, a network of economists that promote Keynes' monetary theory and policies. And her latest book, The Case for the Green New Deal, was published by Verso in 2019. So Ann, thank you so much for joining us today and I'm going to go on mute. And I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Thank you so much. Thank you, John, very much. And thank you for this international event. It's just wonderful to be able to coordinate across the oceans and across the world with you and with others. And it's great honor to be on this panel with lots of wonderful women. I want to begin to say that my work is primary, as John said, on monetary policy and theory. And I'm absolutely convinced that we cannot tackle the ecosystem until we tackle the economic system and in particular the financial system. And that would be the lens through which I'd be examining what Europe is doing. And so basically my argument is that the finance sector has a spigot, if you like, which it turns on and off. Mainly it turns on. And that generates masses of amounts of credit, often very expensive credit in real terms. And that credit is then used to fuel production on the one hand and consumption on the other, which in turn fuels emissions. And for me, unless we follow that whole pipeline, and unless we tackle the spigot, the beginning of the pipeline, we switch off the pipeline at source, we're going to have very great difficulties in tackling greenhouse gas emissions. Now, of course, that's much easier said than done. We're up against Wall Street. We're up against the city of London, backed as they are by massively powerful and weaponized states, the United States of America, where both the left and the right would really not welcome us messing with Wall Street. Nevertheless, the financial system is fragile and precarious and prone to crises and has to continuously be bailed out. The most recent bailout, of course, occurred in March 2020, when effectively the Federal Reserve, Bank of England, the ECB and the Bank of Japan came to the rescue of private finance, effectively nationalized both Wall Street and the city of London for a period. And it's so unconditionally, that's the thing that bugs me the most, you know, I think the monetary system is a little bit like our salutation system, we can't do without it. If it goes down, we'll go down with it. So I'm not entirely in favor of smashing it up. But I do think that when we do have to bail it out, because it's so badly structured, then it ought to be on terms and conditions and those terms and conditions ought to involve the ecosystem. And so my mission in life is to persuade those campaigning around the environment and the ecosystem to keep that perspective in mind, because nothing much will change as long as the banks, the asset management funds, the private equity funds, massive as they are, massively enriched as they have been by the bailouts of 2020, are pouring money into fossil fuels. And until we stop that, you know, we have very little hope of change. And now I want to turn to the subject of our debate today, which is the European Green Deal. Unlike many on the left in Europe, I welcome the Green Deal, mainly because of two things. One, because it unites or it brings together under one umbrella, 27 countries. And the thing that we most miss in this global geopolitical state of the rising nationalism and rising authoritarianism is a failure of the international community to work together and to coordinate. We saw that most tragically, through the pandemic, where the international community as it's called states just absolutely refused to work together to support each other to get through this crisis, and in particular, to provide a vaccine for everybody, not just for the elites, not just for the rich countries. And that failure of coordination is a huge geopolitical threat. We know that when states managed not when failed to work together in the 1930s, they ended up building up political tensions and rising nationalism and so on, which led ultimately to war, to violence and to friction. And indeed, while I speak, we're all concerned about the United States' aggressive attitude towards China, and China's aggression towards Taiwan, etc., and Hong Kong. And all of these are potential flare-up points. And all of this is because of the failure of leadership, if you like, on the one hand, by any state, in particular the United States, but also the growth of nationalism and authoritarianism. Now, Europe has that problem as well, but what Europe has is an institution, inadequate and weak in many ways, that brings together 27 countries and brings together countries as diverse as Poland and Hungary and Germany and France and so on. Now, that bringing together doesn't always work, but what it is aiming to do at the moment is to, if you like, embed in law terms for reduction in commission in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 of 55%. And this demand was made by the European Parliament. It had been, I think, the commission offered 30%, then 40%. And the parliament kept ratcheting it up to 55%. Now, this is wholly inadequate. It's not good enough. It's not fast enough. We need to be aiming at 2025, not 2030. And there's everything that's wrong about it in that sense. But the good thing about it is that it's being embedded in rules and in institutions. And it's and there are institutions that apply across 27 countries. Now, if only Africa had institutions and rules that brought everyone in Africa together around a plan for decommissioning greenhouse gas emissions, that would be a wonderful thing. And if only other parts of Asia, for example, did that. So this ability to bring together 27 countries seems to me to be a strength and something that the European Union should build on. And the second thing is the embedding in law in making it, providing the institutions and the frameworks within which countries are going to be expected to operate and to be accountable for their operation, for the reduction of their emissions. Now, having said that, I'm not I'm not for a moment pretending this is the green new deal. It certainly is not because unfortunately, the European Union is like all the other states and in particular, like the United States, thinking that actually the capacity of the state to do this is inadequate, and that we all have to rely on the private sector to raise the finance. I disagree with that. And I was struck by today, this today, the European Union issued a green bond and wanted to raise 15 billion euros, I think it is all dollars, I can't remember in which currency I read it was denominated. And there was 135 billion dollars aimed at that bond. In other words, you know, the bond was oversubscribed by so many times. And that's because the private finance sector is, as I said, very fragile, and very insecure at the moment, and is desperate to get its hand on safe assets, safe collateral. The safest collateral, the safest assets in the world is not London property. It's not the Queen's race horses. It's not works of art. It's not a fangor. Those are not the most valuable, and it's not even oil or gas or coal any longer. The safest asset in the world is government debt and the government debt of governments like the European Union, regions like the European Union, and governments like that of Britain and the United States, Germany and so on. And we need to understand that as, in fact, a kind of citizen power. Because the private finance sector is so dependent on the state for safe collateral into which to invest their money and get a return on their money, you know, the wonderful thing about a bond is that it issues rent. And if you buy a bond, you can collect rent every month on that bond. It's called interest or yield or whatever word you want to use for it. It's an asset that yields income, unlike gold, for example, which doesn't yield any income. You buy the gold or you sell it, but you don't collect rent on it on a regular basis. With a bond, you can do that. And so bonds are incredibly attractive to the private finance sector. The fact of the matter is that bonds are only that safe and only that valuable because they're backed by taxpayers, taxpayers in the European Union, taxpayers in Britain, taxpayers in the United States, taxpayers in Japan. Because we pay our taxes every year and we pay them regularly. And I said, what, by we, I mean the majority, of course, there are companies and individuals who dodge taxes. But most of us pay our taxes. And it's that generation of regular flows of income into the treasuries of the European Union governments and into the European Commission that makes their promise to pay in the future on that bond so incredibly valuable to the private finance sector. Nothing else can be trusted quite as much. Now, given that that's the case, given that the power of European Central Bank to issue a bond, the power of the Bank of England to issue a bond, the power of the Federal Reserve to issue a bond is a power that's derived from us, the taxpayers. We should be demanding that those bonds should only be issued, especially if they're green bonds, so-called, with certain terms and conditions. You can have access to our bonds, but that's only if you are not invested in fossil fuels. If you're invested in fossil fuels, we're going to buy you from buying our bonds from access to our central banks. Secondly, we are not going to accept your bonds, your corporate bonds, in exchange for liquidity, the central bank liquidity, if those corporate bonds are dirty, brown bonds. If they are bonds, corporate bonds for fossil fuel activity. Sorry, no, we're not going to give you liquidity in exchange for those bonds. Right now, the central banks, the Bank of England, the Federal Reserve ECB are very relaxed about accepting dirty bonds, if you like, from corporates, from big fossil fuel companies as an asset in exchange for liquidity. And I think the thing that bugs me the most about both what's happening in the European Union in Britain and in the United States is the passivity, if you like, of the public, the passivity of taxpayers who are propping up the whole system, keeping it all afloat, keeping Wall Street fabulously rich, basically, and not demanding terms and conditions. So that brings me back to what I'm as critical as anybody of the greenwashing of these countries, of Europe's weaknesses. And it's what's the word I want? It's weakness in saying, oh, we couldn't possibly raise the money, we need private sector money, we need Larry Fink of BlackRock to give us some of his money, of all the money that he's mobilized. When today, the state was able to mobilize 135 billion, when actually it only needed 12 or 15 billion, shows a complete lack of understanding of the power that we have and that the state have. And that, of course, is part of the ideology, the ideology of the state as being unimportant and being subordinate to the interests of the private finance sector. Whereas I think we should be arguing for the state to be for the private finance sector to be the servant to the state and not the master. So my problem with is that for all its weaknesses, I think the greater weaknesses on the left, the greater weaknesses, the failure of green movements and left movements to mobilize opposition and strong opposition to the power of the Wall Street fossil fuel funders. And by that, you know, I'm not wanting to be too critical of the fabulous work that has been done by, for example, Greta Thunberg, who's mobilized the world's children, really. But the rest of us are all, you know, going about doing God knows what without coming together, if you like that. I'm beginning to argue for a campaign like Parents for the Future, you know, getting all the adults together for God's sake. But somehow or other, and this is a long time grievance of my and about the green movement is that it prefers the fragmentation of the movement into pure little blocks are all across the board from a massive mobilization where we unite forces. I read today that something like 85% of the American Republic are backing the progressives in the American Congress who are demanding that more of the infrastructure bill that's being debated should go to climate. You know, this is wildly popular this, but that those masses haven't been mobilized enough, in my view, to challenge the power of both Wall Street, but also Frankfurt and also the city of London. So before we begin to criticize what is already being done, I would argue that we should do more ourselves to unite the movements. And I'll stop on that note. Thank you, John. Fabulous. Thank you, Anne. That was wonderful. So we are now going to move on to perhaps a different perspective from Dushan Payovic. And Dushan is the Green New Deal for Europe campaign coordinator at DM25. And for those of you who are unfamiliar with DM25, that stands for Democracy in Europe Movement 2025. And he is a social psychologist. And he is going to look at perhaps a little bit more critically or a more critical view of not that and weren't critical of the European Green Deal. But Dushan, why don't you take it away and let's hear some different perspective perhaps on the European Green Deal. Thank you, John. Let me just share my screen first. Okay. Great. So first of all, it's a big honor to be here with you today. I'm really glad that we got together to talk about this topic. And thanks to the Anne who spoke before me and to other two comrades who will speak after me. I'm glad to be with you today. As you know, the title and the whole subject is about the European Green Deal. Is it a step forward, sideways or backwards? And let me first state why this is important. Because for example, European Union and Europe as a continent is one of the biggest polluters in the world. We have one of the largest green gas emissions in the world. And we have historical and current injustices that needs to be sold towards the other part of the world. That's why we need something new and we need something green. Unfortunately, as it seems, European Commission itself didn't go to the European Green Deal because of this reason. But because of some other reason. So let me state first why this green deal is a good thing. I mean, what are the good sides of it? Not why is it a good thing? First of all, it's extending carbon pricing to the new sectors with their new fit for 55 package. And as I like to call it fit for 51% package. As well, one other good thing that can also be a bad one to be honest, but I really tried to at least name two good things regarding this policy package. So I left this one on the good side. It is that we are incorporating environmental discourse because vast majority more than 90% of Europeans think that climate change is a real problem that needs to be solved more thoroughly. And this green deal, this green package, is something that at least takes that into consideration on some kind of level. Now already on the bad sides. Just a second. First, this package is not enough to limit average temperature rises to two degrees Celsius, let alone 1.5 Celsius that scientists say that we should aim for. Also, transport and housings are going to be included in the ETS, which is a mission trading scheme, which may sound as a good thing to some people to know liberals and so on, but it's not because common people will feel this on their skin. And they're going to see it when they go to the gas station to pump gas into their car or when they get heating bills. So once again, common people will pay for the sins of big corporations. Also, there's not even a word about public housing, which is a big topic. Homeless is a lot, is a major problem in whole world and in Europe especially. And there are a lot of vacant homes. Look at the periphery of Europe, for example, like 30 to 25 to 30 percent of homes are actually vacant. They are used by politicians and oligarchs that visit them just once in two years, or they are completely empty and abandoned, or they are being used for Airbnb's, then don't pay taxes and so on and so on. We need to buy those houses back and repurpose them to be homes. So also a big topic that comes right after housing is of course green jobs. And the European Commission is really big on this one in words. They say that they are going to open 160,000 jobs in infrastructure. But when you compare it to the active population of European Union, it's basically nothing. It's like 6.5 percent of active population. So this is something that we should really take into consideration when we look at their numbers. Also, what we are referring to as DM25 and what even European Commission is referring to is that new deal by Teddy Roosevelt. But it's nowhere near that policy package. Because, for example, Teddy Roosevelt opened with his team, of course, more than 20 million jobs in just two years from 1933 to 1935. And this is a much bigger scale and much concrete solution to the coming crisis. They also planted more than 3 billion trees and so on and so on, but I won't go into details. With their 50 for 1 percent project, they are also molesting Global South again by having import prices and by not really taking into consideration the historical injustices that Europe has towards Global South in general. And they talk about vague and loose allocation of 250 to 350 billion in a decade, which is nothing like fossil fuel industry gets every minute $11 million in substitutes. So it's completely incomparable. And whenever we say that we need more money, they say that it's not possible. But it is possible when they bail out banks, when they bail out big corporations, fossil fuel industry, and then in our agriculture. Then it is possible. That's why we in DM25 advocate for around 5% GDP yearly to go into green bonds, which is around 750 billion euros. And we advocate for net carbon neutrality until 2030, while green deal by European Union proposes 2,000. And is that really the best that we can do? I mean, we are one of the continents with most resources. This should be a deadline for the world and not for Europe. Europe must lead this transition. That's why let me quote the article that I wrote with Lucas Fabraro, Communications Director. The European Commission had at least the decency of dropping the word new when they co-opted the term green new deal, erased all meaning from it and unveiled the European green deal in 2020. Indeed, it is new. Indeed, new it is not, but nor is it green. As the word deal, we can only understand it as a tribute to the background dealing between Brussels career politicians and well-paid lobbyists that brought this disastrous plan to life. Sorry. On the contrary, green new deal by DM25 is a deal between humanity and nature, not between politicians and oligarchs. Everyone in Europe, your voice is needed more than ever to all of you who are watching this. I'm saying this and you should learn more about the green new deal for Europe. Organized by joining DM25, I will leave a link as soon as I'm done speaking and help set the course of this campaign. The future is up for grabs and let's see it before it's too late. These are only some of the reviews we've got for our blueprint for Europe just transition and big thanks to Anne Petty for who also helped us write it. This is according to Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org. This is the first attempt at a political solution to climate change that is on the same scale as the crisis itself. The most comprehensive program in Europe for the historic challenge I hand said by James Gilbert and so on and so on. For example, Caroline Lucas, the UK Green Party MP said that it is a clear and comprehensive policy package with the spirit of openness and participation. I'm just now teasing you to read our blueprint, that's the whole idea. I don't have time to present it all now, but let me say that it's not just semantics. Green deal is not the same as the green new deal that we offer, the 10 offer and that many other progressive software. That's why we need to push it right now. In our blueprint for Europe just transition, we say that the process shouldn't be top down, which European Commission is actually doing. So we need to form at least three big bodies for starters to kickstart this green transition. The first one is called, in our case, Green Public Works. The investment plan to power Europe's green transition and transform its economy along the way. The second one is Environmental Union, which would be a new regulatory framework for the just transition aligned with Europe's law with the scientific consensus. And the third and final one would be Environmental Justice Commission, which would be an independent body to research, monitor and advise the EU policy makers to advance the cause of environmental justice across Europe and around the world, with taking into account intergenerational, intersectional and international justice. So that's why, as I said, we need green new deal that will come through the deliberative democracy at the municipal, regional, national and European levels. This is one of the way we can push for it. So you will see that we say that Ursula from Brussels cannot know better than people who live here in Lisbon, for example, what needs to be done in Lisbon. We need to align people needs with the scientific consensus and then make the policies and push for those policies along the way. So let me remind you that green new deal by VM25 is a worker's friendly solution that is green in both its nature, not just in its cosmetic, and that is a radical yet realistic solution that is completely necessary. And that's it from me. And I'm looking forward to your questions. Thank you. Thank you, Dushan. That was wonderfully succinct. You came in underneath your 14. I even have to show the little sign, which is wonderful. So both of the speakers have been very cognizant of their time limits. So they've set a good example. And for our third speaker, who is Assad Rehman. And for those of you who don't know, Assad is the executive director of War on Want. And that's where he organizes to put an end to poverty and injustice. He's a longtime climate justice campaigner. Prior to his executive director position at War on Want, he was the head of international climate at Friends of the Earth. So Assad, thank you for joining us. As I told other people, you get the one minute warning at 14 minutes. But maybe you won't even have to see that sign. So I'm going to hand it over to you. And thank you for joining us. Thank you, John. And I'll take your warning to heart. Thank you for the opportunity to join you all today and on this incredibly wonderful panel with such powerful ways of wisdom. It's always a challenge to follow my fellow panelists. It seems like I nod along with so much of their analysis and mention the COVID pandemic. And if we view it as a curtain razor to the climate crisis, then we see the reality of rich countries, including the EU and the hollowness of their statements that no one is safe until everyone is until we're all safe, while of course, at the same time, putting the profits to the big farm ahead of the lives of people in the global south. And that is to some extent the template of how wealthy nations are responding to all this crisis that we face. And the reality is, of course, five million deaths, hundreds and millions of COVID cases, reality of a COVID vaccine apartheid, death and illness for the poor and the hoarding of vaccines in Europe. And the turning of its back on the global side, forcing many of the poorest countries into more debt creating IMF loans that require a new wave of austerity and public sector cuts. And I think we need to take a step back and, you know, and recognize that the moment we're in, from whether it's from the shackles of slavery to the gumbots of colonialism to the whiphand of neoliberalism, this politics of sacrificing those in the global side has created this world. And that's now driven by deep imbalances of power, and of course, generated by these historical injustices, and that all of these systems of injustice, of course, have become entrenched. And it's so hardwired into our economic political systems that the reality, as we all know, is we're not equal, neither in our exposure to violence and justice, nor in our capacity to be able to address it. And whether we look at the pandemic, the climate crisis, crisis economically inequality, or the deliberate impoverishment so many countries through unjust and inferno liberal economic policies, we know at the center that continues to be this active denial of the right of every citizen of the world to be able to live with dignity. So we're in an interesting moment because there seems to be a widespread recognition amongst politicians and policymakers that this magnitude of this crisis we face, facing humanity, dwarfs anything we've ever previously faced. But it sits alongside what I call a cognitive distance by the scale of urgent and ambitious action that's needed. And it's only matched by the shrugging of the shoulders by the richest when you actually point out their responsibility for this crisis. So the EU's co-option of this Green New Deal frame and promise that it will herald this green transition to address both the climate crisis and the domestic crisis of economic inequality. The question for us as internationalists, of course, remains, are these proposals fair? Are they just? And what do they mean for the majority of the world's citizens? For those of us who've been working on a framework of a global Green New Deal that situates itself in the realities of the front lines of injustice rather than the capitals of power, I think there are four critical tests that we must measure the EU's Green New Deal on. Does it meet the goal of limiting temperatures to well below 1.5 degrees with everyone doing their fair share? Does it tackle economic inequality and ensure that everyone has a right to living wage, workers rights, social protection, free and universal public services? Does it put well-being and the right for everyone to thrive in balance with planetary limits ahead of unsustainable growth and extraction of resources? For instance, making public goods such as energy and food and housing a fundamental right for all under democratic and public control, actively shared and not for profit. But and also does it undo those embedded systems of injustice with racism, patriarchy and economic injustice that have become embedded into our global systems? For instance, how do we move beyond a circular economy to a circular world where the financial flows at the scale commensurate with need and without conditionalities? Will it deliver the technologies needed for a justice transition that are not going to be subject to the barriers of trips or unfair trade rules of corporate control? And does it recognize that the wealth of the global north of course in its capacity has been built on the extraction of resources and exploitation of the people in the global side? You've already heard and I don't need to spend much time setting out the climate climate case. We know we've all heard Code Red for Humanity, humanity at the crossroads. There is absolutely no end to the alarm bells that have been rung and whilst limiting the temperatures to below 1.5 degrees as set in the Paris Agreement is reported repeated ad nauseam by politicians, including by the EU. We know the reality we're heading towards a warming of at least 2.7 degrees and global emissions are increasing. But what I was really telling is the actual carbon budget for 1.5 seems to be absolutely willfully ignored or some magical fantastic fantasy accounting and and and relying on own proven and risky technologies around what I call the magical unicorn that is a net zero 2050 goal seems to be at the centre of policymaking and look we all know that historical emissions matter both in terms of capacity and responsibility. But when you look at the IPCC report we can see that we now have less than 500 gigatons of CO2 for the remaining carbon budget of 1.5 degrees. By the end of this year we'll have burned through 89% of that budget for a two in three chance of meeting the 1.5 degree guardrail. And let's dwell on that for a second. That means there's a one in three chance that we'll breach the one in one point five degree guardrail whilst no temperature say level is safe and it's deadly for many. We know that begins the spiraling to run away climate change that will dwarf all the killer fires, floods and famines that we've seen causing havoc and destroying lives of livelihoods and the economies of the global size. And it's interesting that no policymaker in the commission would be as bold as to countenance a public policy for European citizens that included such risk neither would those same policymakers board a bus or train if they were told they had a one in three chance of crashing. But that's exactly what has been sold to the global size who will face the worst impacts. And yet the EU as we've heard represents some of the richest countries in the world those most responsible for the for the crisis with the most capacity to act and also with the legal obligation to act. So the so called fit for 55 the 55% emission reduction target by 2030 that will create what we're told is the first climate continent that is ambition and just ignores the requirements of both science and justice and alongside promoting the Green New Deal it's fascinating to see the EU then continuing these plans for more capture of the remaining carbon budget a modern form of carbon colonialism pushing for more loopholes through offsets and carbon markets. And we moved from a moment of climate denialism to what is now mitigation denialism and of course the result is justice denied. So on its first and most important test it's absolutely failed. The second I also don't need to give you chapter and verse about inequality we all know exists both within rich countries and of course between the richest and the majority of the world and whilst the world is of course abundantly wealth and we see wealth increasing each and every year the reality still is that half the world is struggling to survive on less than five dollars fifty half without access to electricity or clean cooking two billion people facing issues of hunger lacking housing health education and that global inequality of course is not get better is getting worse and that's not accidental as we know it's a deliberate result of policies that put competitiveness and control resources ahead of people. So whilst the European Union talks about setting up a fund to tackle inequality within Europe neither the Green New Deal or the EU's other external policies acknowledge that tackling global inequality must also be its cornerstone instead as we've heard the language of competitiveness dominates and we all know tough talk on climate change means little alongside the if alongside the Green New Deal the EU continues to pour money billions into fossil fuel subsidies locking the European Union into a massive new expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure even as the IEA categorically states that no new gas oil or coal expansion is possible. European financial institutions both public and private continue to provide the financial oxygen to the industry and policymakers continue to do that do what I say to the rest of the world not what I do we all know nudging finance to the right thing as Anne said doesn't make isn't sufficient we need immediate regulation of finance putting binding regulations on corporations to meet the goal of 1.5 degrees and tackling inequality but also the over consumption and increase of energy use remains an absolute cornerstone despite its claims of energy efficiency domestically the EU continues to devise policies around expansion of resource use from green metals and minerals to new metal mining and estimates as we know that will see a doubling of current resource extraction when of course sustainable use of our planet material planets materials would require a reduction by at least a half its claims of do no harm within its own policies of course is due harm to the global size and we can see that with the trade rules that continue to be promoted by the European Union at the very same time as it loads its Green New Deal lower environmental standards lower health and consumer protection right in corporate courts the notorious ISDS into trade rules whether it's with Vietnam, Mexico and Indonesia and whilst the Green New Deal talks a lot about you know its values of precautionary principles for Europe of course those don't apply for the global size and you know the Green New Deal the European Green New Deal says it will unlock one trillion over a decade for this just transition and we all we've seen from the reports from untied and countless climate scientists who've calculated the scale of finance needed globally to meet both the climate goal and the 2030 SDGs would be in the scale of about 1.4 trillion a year for the next decade and we know that for a decade we've had this climate promise of 100 billion and that is still being unmet that of course is still overwhelming relies on loans and recycling over the commitments and today you may have heard the president of the COP26 once again announce that the 100 billion will be met but again from the private sector at the very same same time of course of the EU and much of the global north continue to benefit from the 24 dollars that flows from the global size to the north for every one dollar that flows from the nice north of size so in this moment of civilizational crisis how do we ensure that that responses aren't shaped by politics that lacks imagination and ambition and continues the same failed and deadly approach that makes the poorest pay that heaviest price and so whilst the EU seeks to normalize our politics studies walls and fences around Europe have gunboats and criminalizing those who seek safety uh it's not sufficient to simply say well this is a step forward because the truth is winning slowly is the same as losing so this is a moment for us to actually put forward a broader and a more ambitious vision for a genuine Green New Deal within the European Union but also part and parcel of a global Green New Deal and I agree with Anne that question is not simply about having vision and not simply about having the right political demands it's about building power it's about weaving our movement of movements together it's about then targeting our political leaders and the institutions to deliver the actions that we needed we all know that transformation has only come through the power of people and that really now has to be our rallying call and a rallying call around a global Green New Deal that delivers not only for the citizens of Europe but delivers for the citizens of the world. Asa thank you that too came in under under your 15 minutes in addition to being rousing and I'm particularly struck by by your winning slowly is the same as losing I'm going to come back to that that sentence later on. Our final presenter is Clara Bourge and and thank you patiently waiting for this slot Clara she is the Policy and Advocacy Officer at Counterbalance which monitors public finance institutions and actors especially in Europe. Clara the floor is yours. Hi everyone and yeah thank you so much for inviting me to speak at this first event of this really great initiative and to be part very grateful to be part of this impressive line of speakers so I'll try to yeah it'd be difficult to follow up but I'll try my best let me share my screen so I'll be talking more about the public financing of the Green Deal and what is being yeah sorry it's too good it's not sure okay so yeah I'll be talking more about the financing which is an issue that has often been left aside in debates about the EU Green Deal so I'm very grateful to be able to speak more about this today with you so first a few words about counterbalance through a coalition of nine NGOs working on EU public finance and we were set up back in 2007 to more specifically to target the European Investment Bank which is the bank of the EU and have since then led campaigns to make it a more sustainable and democratic institution and aside from working on the EIB we've also monitored different investment plans at European level and what we've done in the last year is to look more into the European Green Deal and what's on the table in terms of the financing so the financing pillar of the Green Deal is called the Sustainable Europe Investment Plan and its aim as I also mentioned it's to mobilize one trillion by 2030 and in practice it's made of 25 percent of the EU budget which will be targeted to climate and environmental investment with less amounts to so this is in the period 2021 to 2027 and this amounts to 503 billion which will also aim at mobilizing triggering other national co-financing of 114 billion then there's InvestEU which is a guarantee fund from the EU budget to the European Investment Bank and other public banks and aims at mobilizing public and private investments of around 279 billion thirdly there's the Just Transition Mechanism which aims at mobilizing 100 billion euros over the period 2021 to 2027 and extrapolated over 10 years this amounts to 143 billion and finally the Innovation and Mechanization funds also counted under the SCIP and these are financed by part of the revenues of the EU emissions trading system and this will amount to 25 billion euros so even if the the implementation of this financing pillar has just begun there's already clear trends that are emerging so with counterbalance we've identified three main issues structural flaws that make it yeah that make it not really up to the task to really respond to the challenges that we are facing so first of all as has been said also by speakers before it's very much yeah it's an undersized plan the 1 trillion is actually mainly a political announcement it doesn't even reflect what will actually be invested by the EU and so most of it is basically what it's expected to leverage by from the private sector by these investment mechanisms and most instruments are actually simply relabbling of already existing investment program so for example invest EU is simply a continuation of the previous FC program yeah which was the European actually yeah the previous sorry I have to look back yeah the European Fund for Strategic Investment and actually the main the only two new things are part of the just transition mechanisms so the just transition fund and the public sector loan facility but despite the novelty and the added yeah the the added value that they could bring they're also undeniably of very limited size so they could be considered more as pilot initiative rather than very significant investments and secondly one of the our criticism is the strong bias in favor of the private and financial sector so one stated aim as I said is to use public finance to de-risk private investments to leverage yeah to leverage private finance and this actually yeah this approach ignores the fact that a lot of the projects that we need for truly just an ecological transition will not be bankable or offer a return of investment in the short term and this also risks there's also a big risk around the SCIP and the sustainable finance agenda behind it that it will yeah reinforce the financialization of our economies by increasingly channeling public funds into private equity so-called green finance and other investment schemes at the expense of the real economy and also furthering inequalities within and between countries and then finally our last criticism is on the in the ones that I want to point out today because I imagine there's a lot of criticism criticism that can be given but it's on the top-down approach of this plan so looking at how the EIB and invest EU will function it is quite unlikely that decisions about loans and about financial instruments will be taken in a transparent accountable and participative manner so following this criticism we'll try to sketch out our proposal for what the EU public financing and financing of the Green Deal could look like and it would be one that could work towards the decarbonization the definitialization and the democratization of our economies and societies and we consider that these three dimensions should be taken all together if you want to actually achieve systemic change so first on decarbonization it's also the idea that the solutions to the climate crisis should not only be green but actually contribute to a real transformation of our societies and for that focusing on essential public services is key and should be at the heart of the public mission of the Green Deal. Another concrete proposal is to introduce strict social and non-vampal conditions on all of the financing linked to the Green Deal and yeah so that means of course no more financing to fossil fuels and other environmental harmful activities but also making sure that there is meaningful conditions on human rights and workers rights and for them to be really embedded in all of the ACIP funding and then finally there's it's crucial to decolonize the Green Deal so even though there's an urgent need to transition to a carbon societies this should not be done at the expense of people and communities in other countries. Then secondly we looked at how we could use public finance to differentialize the the economic system. So one key challenge today is not only about reclaiming public finance and public investments as an alternative to private finance but it is also about activating actually one of the most powerful tools that we have at our disposal to shrink private capital markets and to re-channel private wealth into public interest mechanisms that can act progressively outside of the pure market logic. So one proposal for example would be that instead of giving out big credit lines to equity funds and private banks, public investment banks could and also funding programs under the ACIP could fund cooperatives and other actors in the social and solidarity sector to set up community led banks that can invest directly in the local and sustainable economies. So by offering them very long-term bonds they can be managed outside of the pure short-term profit maximization logic of markets. In this way progressively more investments could be taken out of the other hands of private investors and more and being directed more by the public in the public interest. But for that of course we need to democratize and hold be able to hold public financial flows into account. So following the subsidiary principle have decision making have democratic decision making where decisions can be taken at the most appropriate level and not follow a top-down approach where that ignores local realities and this is where having a more decentralized web of public sustainable and democratic public banks could would be crucial. And of course ultimately there is a need to fundamentally reform the institutions that are implementing the ACIP. So for example the EIB and other national public banks so that these institutions can become easier to control so that they can they can actually prioritize quality over quantity and have the right save cards and conditions in place over the use of public money. So it keeps the conclusion short but just to say that yeah for us we believe that if if we centered around public good and democratize the the Green Deal and financing could become a good opportunity to actually use public money for actually just an unranked solution. And the current financing over the Green Deal could become sort of laboratory in this regard so in in a for another type of financing. So beyond the carbonization also looking at how yeah how public money could be used to actually definitialize the economic system and yeah actually yeah definitialize the economic system and not be yeah not remove itself from the pressure of the financial markets. So I really hope that yeah the elements that I presented today can give you some food for thought. Also I forgot to mention that these elements are also going to be part of our new reports that we'll publish next week and yeah I hope that we can start a debate on how to reclaim public finance for the public goods and also yeah so I'll stop for now and look forward to your questions. Thank you Clara that was excellent and you had the perhaps the hardest topic which is at least for me I find the topic of financing so complicated but this was very clear and I really appreciate that. I'm going to ask folks to put their questions in the Q&A and and I'm going to scan that but I will also take the first crack. And you know all of you have presented both I think a pointing out some of the advantages of the European Green Deal especially given what we have here in the United States and in some other parts of the world but also you've leveled some pretty significant critiques and and I am struck again by the this sentence that Assad made about you know moving slowly is is winning slowly is the same as losing and given that as a as a reality you know because winning slowly against against climate changes is quite clearly a loss if we don't reduce carbon emissions quickly and reduce have some chance of getting underneath 1.5. When we look at the European Green Deal we have it seems a period of time where we can make some interventions and the question is are there useful interventions that we can make and when I say we I don't mean you know as individuals but again mindful of what Anne said in terms of of movement building we as a movement what are the interventions that we can make during this process to push this enormous edifice of the European Green Deal in at least a somewhat better direction again mindful that once again slow a slow win is not a win at all and then second for those of us outside of Europe are there any mechanisms by which we can influence this or is this in a European game with only European players having an influence and a number of you have pointed out that you know that the global south is going to be impacted considerably by what happens in Europe are there ways for the global south to make their voices not only heard but their demands actually met in transforming the European Green Deal as we move forward I'm going to ask Anne first since you started off if you have any any thoughts on either of those questions really really big question I mean I think what has to happen is a we have to mobilize but we b we have to be we have to have something to mobilize for and behind which we can all stand in other words there has to be if you like a banner behind which we all stand demanding change and and then secondly we have to understand our power and use that power at the moment we don't understand our power so you know my answer is always a bit pathetic really I feel given the need for urgency as I said rightly argued I mean for me the the real task first task is understanding and and speaking to the public in language that is accessible and and that mobilizes and then secondly I think it's really important for us to overcome our divisions you know and to also not wish to always be who like the most pure and the most advanced and the most radical there's been a very interesting essay written here by a prominent green activist in Britain in which he's argued that extreme rebellion for example represents if you like the radical flank of the movement but that radical flank is running out of steam why because it really doesn't have um it's not unifying it's not unifying it's not bringing into the movement the if you like those in the middle and and even those in opposition you know the whole point about leadership is to be able to bend public opinion behind progressive policies and to bring public opinion behind us even those that are hostile to us now you know I've I mentioned the the polling numbers in the United States and there is there is clearly a majority for radical action on climate because these people are already living the climate breakdown you know and yesterday we heard from China China's coal field region is being swamped with floods at the moment and and coal mines have had to be closed you know climate is already impacting on people but what are where where are they being mobilized and how are they being mobilized so I think the public will is there what is missing is the channel how do we channel that into um into action and I I don't have an answer I what I I begin by saying we've got to help the public understand the problem and we have to then also help the public understand what has to be changed who has to be changed um you know but the problem is for me that the finance sector if you like Frankfurt's finance sector um and Wall Street are all invisible they're not tangible that you they can't see them you know when when you when you drive into a garage and to buy oil there is something very tangible there if you look at an oil company in the United States were fracking outfits it's there you can touch it you can see it you can't see finance you can't see what it's doing but you can't see its power its power is immense but um but what you can see is the role that taxpayers play in backing up um the private sector the role that the public sector plays in providing support the private sector wouldn't make the capital gains in the profits it makes without public institutions like for example the law that enforces contracts you know we live in Britain and Britain can be a pretty lawless place but right now Russian oligarchs come here to secure contracts they come here to process their divorces because there's no legal system in Russia that protects their interests and yet we allow them to come here and exploit our public institutions we the taxpayers have built the legal system here and we don't ask any questions we think it's wonderful to have Russian oligarchs wandering around London etc etc so um and we vote for the politicians that support them so the thing is terribly wrong with the way in which we I think who define ourselves as progressives have organized or failed to organize um in Britain we've had to face the fact that you know we failed we failed dramatically as a result of our campaign the conservatives here have the biggest majority they've ever had in history um and that's a painful realization really um and it means we really have to think hard about what our tactics and our strategy anyway I'm waffling now I'm not helping at all I'm this I'm conscious but I I think at least we admit to that and we acknowledge that and we begin to you know the children have mobilized the children have a leader she's wonderful she's a young girl and she's exercising the most extraordinary leadership and she's mobilized the most extraordinary gang of people of young people but really you know why is it on the shoulders of these young people what's happened to the if you like the adults in the room why aren't they offering that sort of leadership as well to the world and you know Greta hasn't just mobilized one section of the world's children she's mobilized them all you know there's no argument about you know where are you on the spectrum of the left spectrum here she brings everybody into her camp we don't have the same happening if you like um with with the rest of the movement anyway I'll stop at that point thank you Anne that's that's very helpful um Dushan you you laid out actually you know a very clear kind of set of three alternative institutions that that could govern a kind of authentic European Green New Deal one that in which all the terms actually were relevant um but I'm curious whether as we try to build those institutions is there any from your point of view is there any benefit in engaging with European Green Deal as it is currently constituted in order to push it in a better direction or is that simply not a useful task well I would say both that DM works as both as a movement and we have our own electoral wins so we need to push the structures to do better but also we've got disappointed and tired of that many many times that's why we form the electoral wins because as it seems for now at least you cannot push a rotten structure to do something good for example for Green Deal to be called Green New Deal it has to have some kind of frameworks like let's say at least publicly owned the money should funnel to the publicly owned companies to the companies with workers on boards or even one person one share system and we should have less working weeks like four day work week with less working hours six hours a day because we need the radical degrowth as well and we don't really see that happening with the current structure of European Union and European Commission so we need to push as a movement we need to bring and create people's assemblies all over Europe as well but we need to fight in the political arena with political parties as well that's why we have the Congress of our new German electoral being on the 13th of November and that's why we have our comrades working card in Greece called our party called Mera25 excellent thank you we have a we have an excellent question in the Q&A about extractivism which i want to get to but first i want to i want to go to you Assad and and and what are the mechanisms by which the voices of the global south can be heard not only heard but actually have an impact on the debate in Europe today well i think i think my starting point would be first we have to learn from the mistakes of the past we have to look and say how did we get here right and there is a lot of culpability right there's a culpability of of how climate was framed the actors that dominated the climate space we all remember you know climate the story was white polar bears on a white iceberg right it was empty calls for action it was it was ignoring the realities of the economic system and believing that somehow climate could be resolved with that even though within all of these organizations there was an understanding of that this climate was ultimately a structural and an economic and political as well as an environmental issue so you know how do we move beyond that well you know uh Frederick Douglass you know famously said um power concedes nothing without a demand right it never did and it never will and you know for too long our demand uh has not been a demand right it's been empty calls to act um you know individuals act individually act of this and of course that's all being co-opted you only need to turn on the television now on every advert it's it's all about us as consumers right us as individuals acting so there is a moment right we know we need to build the movement of movements that's absolutely clear to build power requires a movement of movements but to to do that again we know from our own history you need a vision you need to be able to describe the world that you are trying to create that people can see themselves in it's no good saying to people who are struggling to basically make ends meet everything is going to be all right when they will hold on to what little they've got because they understand what decades of deindustrialization of austerity has meant to the poorest people they've been the ones that being thrown onto the scrappy it means having the right concrete political demands and and not being afraid of making those political demands as Anne said when it's interesting because you look at polling all around the world and individually each of those policies whether it's about you know control food or energy or public control or living wages they all poll really really highly right people have got an intent to be able to to support them what they fear is the ability to be able to implement them and then they retreat that means you have to build the power around it now there is a lot to be said and that's very very positive about the fact that the climate strike is in the global north i've moved the dial on on climate in a way in the last two or three years that you know decades of campaigning by mainstream environmentalism hasn't but you know of course they come on the back of climate justice groups in the global south who have always talked about that very intersectional way of talking about they you know i remember was fighting you know in Copenhagen right for glimit temperatures to well below one degree you know two degrees is is death for Africa i remember all of the mainstream NGOs the big brands standing against us alongside the european union claiming that the european union was a climate champion we're seeing that logic and that rhetoric again of this co-option so we need to do both popular education in terms of socializing this message out but we also need to do political education within our own movements as well so that those hundreds of thousands of young people who are turning out on the streets today you know actually understand what we're fighting for because if we don't provide a demand and a vision and people will say let's take action on climate but let's take action on climate that of course is veers into ecofascism we saw with the german elections right young people didn't just vote for the greens or the progressives of the dillink and they were also voting in huge numbers for the right right using the same arguments about climate and saying it's a climate emergency we have to shore up ourselves so this is a very very pivotal moment we know change is coming right the question is of course who's changed for who and what so to me this is a deeply political question that the left has generally left and progressives have shown the same dissonance actually as the right on the climate crisis right oh this is another thing it's abstract it's over there it isn't it isn't immediate it isn't real i we have just a material this that you know we're only interested in people's material conditions today but without understanding obviously about the realities of both the climate crisis and and ignoring the realities that you know there is a danger that the transition in the global north will be British workers and European workers against workers of the of the rest of the world how do we do that well there's a one very very important word and i've always said it's the most important word in the language of the working class it's the most important word in the language of the global safe movements and it's the most important word that i learned in my formative years in the black and anti-racist struggle it's the word solidarity and without that concept of solidarity being rebuilt we're not going to get the internationalism that is required so you can see climate action but you may very well see it within the border walls of the global north how do we move that that is rebuilding internationalism i mean i come from a tradition that bullet you know of course understood colonialism and anti-imperialism and it's been lost and we have to retell those stories and rebuild and and and be able to articulate in a political language that is accessible and i totally agree with an i'm not here for purity i'm here for telling the truth and as long as you tell the truth and say this is the scale of what was need what is needed we may you know look there are many climate scientists who already say we've lost 1.5 with the committed emissions in the atmosphere that really what we're fighting for is are we going to limit temperatures to two two and a half three degrees where are we going to find the land we know that every 0.1 degree that we prevent is lives and livelihoods that will be saved and to us there is no end to this battle because it is it is a fundamentally a transformation and a civilizational battle so i don't see about winning only at the COP26 i see this as being how are we constantly strengthening our movements and weaving those together and there are great examples of course you know who would have thought Chile of Pinochet would be the Chile that i've took to the streets and overthrew and reimagining Chile outside of the neoliberal paradigm even Europe there was a time when kings and queens nobody ever thought that we'd overthrow them we've overthrown all of these things so i'm a optimist and i think we have to be optimistic within our movements as well. John can i just interrupt come in here sorry to because i think asset has raised a really important point about question of a demand and that we need to make a demand and one of the things that really disturbs me is that the big corporates when they realized the scale of what was coming decided to invent this thing called the carbon footprint in which you know responsibility for carbon was dispersed amongst everybody when we know that the top 10 percent of the population of the world and that's the north it's the rich the top 10 percent are responsible for 50 percent of all emissions and if we just focused on the top 1 percent 10 percent and argued that they're the ones you know that have to give up their frequent flyer privileges that have to stop buying huge motor cars that have to stop blah blah you know if we aim if we turned our ammunition if you like on the top 10 percent instead of saying oh we want carbon and taxes that are going to affect everybody we've all got to change we've all got to change our behavior that's really really hard but if we demanded the top 10 percent transform their behavior i mean i think that unites people and it says look you know we know where the trouble lies and the trouble doesn't lie with ordinary folk it doesn't lie with Africa it doesn't lie with the poor it lies with the rich it lies with all those you know the biggest emitters are not people like you and me and we may emit some carbon but mainly that's because of the framework that's been created for us but really what we have to do is change the rich anyway that's where i think we should be going in terms of the demand and i think that asset's absolutely right that's what we have to formulate is a demand excellent so i'm gonna have to also apologize because i'm gonna have to go soon i'm afraid we'll all be going soon in about 10 minutes but if you have to leave early that's that's perfectly okay but i think your point about a in a sense of climate populism translating this into political have a chance of mobilizing a broad sector of the population uh is is very useful um claire i want to give you a chance just to answer on quickly if you can if there's anything you know counterbalance is recommending as a kind of next step for especially kind of raising this issue of public finance within the the context of the european green deal and meanwhile the rest of you can think about the the two the several questions that have now emerged about green extractivism and and targeting urban mining as a sector to push forward and as well this question about how rich countries can actually very concretely support the transition of global south countries to a green economy but first claire do you have some thoughts quickly on next steps yeah i mean what we've tried to do with our report is really to try to start a discussion about these issues so there's money on the table not enough of course and there's loads of there's loads of issues with it as we've highlighted but there could be a way of using it in another way of like of trying to actually make it useful the public good and to really work towards a just an ecological transition so we try to be ambitious you know demands as well and yeah i think there's yeah there's a lot of work obviously to be done to really reforming public finance because a lot of it is not there yet but there's discussions on it also in the u.s about this great discussion actually happening there and i think these are also often missing in europe so this is really the work that we're trying to do to have other civil society organization working on this and yeah to try to reclaim public finance so that actually you can serve the public and yeah so i tried to keep it short very short because yeah i don't have that much time and we all look forward to the report which which will come out next week and and we make it available to everyone who who has signed up as well um uh who wants to take a crack at these these more specific kind of questions one on extractivism and in so-called green extractivism and and the second on kind of concrete measures for the global north to actually assist the global south and in a sense leapfrogging into a into a cleaner future i will go with whomever wants to try to answer those questions to shun i will try to be brief in order to give my colleagues a space to answer as well but let me say that we need to completely renegotiate the trade rules to support diversified and self-sustainable economies in europe and around the world and we need to recognize ecocide as a kind against humanity and basically we have to establish environmental abuses directing to recognize that environmental destruction is a threat to human and non-human life that's the only way we can sell ourselves with international agreements and international protocols and world trade organization rules that's the only thing we can do in order to stop one of the things at least that we can do in order for the europe's just transition not to fall on the back of global south that shouldn't be the case at all as i said we have the historical and current injustices that need to be sold and reparation money should be sent to that side as well to help them with their own just transition we are all sharing the same world at the end of the day excellent thank you asa did you want to take a crack at either of these two questions yeah i will and i will be brief in fact i've just posted in the chat to daniel a report we did on on a just just transition is a post-extractive transition and why there needs to be a huge paradigm shift in terms of that but but just in terms of immediate focus and just with an and everybody here i'm joined with you i'm just remembering of course seattle and and and you know the powerful movements that we had then we're not bringing it weaving together these these movements talking about the trade rules and dublity and of course that fell off the political agenda for many people over the over the last decades but the climate waiver i mean the vaccine apartheid vaccine waiver as i think opened up a moment for us to have a bigger conversation about trade so we think coming in at for example arguing for climate waivers right that all technologies that are needed for the justice transition to be freely available goes to the heart of tackling of course the unfair trade rules tackling the ISDS and the investor state dispute settlement goes to the heart of the way that our global trade system is being settled we know that the reality of the solutions is going to be the old slogan one or many yeses and it will be different in different contexts but there are some key fights that we can do that alter the dynamic and allow the policy space for countries in the global south to be able to develop alternative differently right we know that you know whether it's been progressive governments in the 70s anti-imperialist there's always been this fight in terms of how do you have how are you able to you know meet the needs of your own citizens when you're locked into a global trading system which forces you to into export commodities into those supply chains we need to be able to break that but break in that and we as warren won't work a lot with garment workers and it's a a very interesting i think story of of how the different movements can go so wrong in in this moment right people look at for example the fashion industry and the garment sector and say oh it's terrible it's really climate polluting it's unsustainable what i will do is i will not buy right and ignoring of course the millions of of garment workers who are being left destitute and all social protection and how do we then start to talk about actually what control of a supply chain and and a sustainable supply chain actually begins to look like at all stages so that the it's not the poorest who are carrying the the cost of that and of course it is absolutely possible to do that we know that we have to we have to we have to decentralize production and it has to be sustainable etc so all of those things are really really are important i think a critical part of the climate movement is shifting the climate movement away from seeing climate as climate and shifting it to seeing it as being an economic and political and getting those young people that we keep talking about targeting the WTO, targeting the IMF and the World Bank in the same way that they're coming out on on on climate and John just whilst i'm talking i'm going to be very very brief you mentioned something about you know earlier about you know what do you do for people who are in the US about affecting you know these the European Green New Deal look you know i see that Tom is on in on this call as well i think the that we know that the push is exactly the same right how do we get in the US to do its fair share how do we get the European Union to do its fair share of effort how do we start to calculate what those financial flaws are and then how do we make sure that our domestic demands are also connected to international demands and too often the domestic demands are separated from our international demands it's like this they operate in two different worlds rather than making the same demand we're fighting for public services in Europe we should be saying public services in Europe and globally we're fighting for NHS if we're fighting for social protection how do we weed these stories and these demands together so it's not and but it's it's not or it's an and together and i think that's the only real alternative if i may just add one sentence uh somehow i forgot to to mention one really big thing which is the fact that European Union must stop all unnecessary military equipment movements and the EU must be aggressive in its common foreign and security policy in preventing wars and conditions that give rise to war by negotiating a new international convention for the elimination of war in that way we can encourage our comrades on global south to redirect that money towards climate disasters and preventing its influences excellent thank you i thought that's a very good place to end i would like to thank all of the presenters uh today you really provided us with a a a much clearer understanding not only of the european green deal but of the stakes in general that we face both within europe and outside of europe as i said this is the first of a number of presentations we'll be doing that provide updates on where we are with green new deals and similar initiatives around the world we'll be doing one on south korea's green new deal in november and then on from there we'll be preparing a report based on the conversation here which will go out to a larger audience so that we ensure that the the wisdom here is is put on paper and and sent much further afield so once again thank you all for for joining us and i look forward to seeing you at our future events