 Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I will try to live up to the rock star one day. One day, not yet, but one day. It's a great player. It's truly a great player. And it's an honor to be here with you. I've learned much already all day. My name isn't supposed to be that funny, but thank you. I've already learned a lot. And I can promise you that this will be different from the rest. I'm not only not going to be traveling at ground level. I'm not even going to do $30,000. I'm trying to go to outer space, kind of literally, as you will see. But since I have a lot of things to say, let me get right into it after thanking all of you for this. Any questions? Now, I wanted to start by posing three questions. These are questions for you to think about as I talk. I promise you. I will not answer any of them. Because if I did, we'll have nothing to talk about. But these are contextual questions that I hope you can think about. One is, I want you to think about what global means. We keep talking about global as if it's something real. Global climate change, globalization, global finance, lacuna matada. What would it really mean in terms of these things if we were to think globally? That's question one. Question two, what does it mean to live in what I call the age of adaptation? And that's really the first of what I will be talking about. The claim that we are already living in the age of adaptation. And in the age of adaptation, you become the front line much more like than people like myself who've been working on climate change. We live in the age of adaptation. Because essentially, those of us working on climate change failed. We failed miserably. We were never supposed to be in the age of adaptation. But there we are. And that is why we need you. And that leads to the third question I want you to think about. What does it mean to live in the age of adaptation for those of you in the humanitarian space? And I hope we can have a conversation on that. So those are the three big contextual questions. Professors are, it's OK for professors to be silly. I hope it's also OK for MSF to have speakers who are a little silly allow me to be silly so that we are after lunch. And then that's a good time to be silly. Imagine for a moment, a thought exercise, that you are not in London. Imagine for a moment that you're not in the UK. Imagine for a moment you're not in Europe. Imagine you're not even on this planet. Imagine you're on some other planet. Choose your planet. Anyone? There used to be nine. Now they say there are eight. At least one of them is not doing very well. And from that perch, imagine you are looking down on this thing called Earth. And you have been asked by the World Bank equivalent of that planet to write in two pages or less, 12 point times Roman. No footnotes. A country report on the planet Earth. What would someone see if they saw this planet as if it was a country? Most of you work internationally and we see these reports all the time. What would it look like? If you were in my class, you would actually have to submit it. No, they do really. So here we are. Let me give you a brief synopsis. This is one version. There's also a different version. I'll give you only one version. I would wager that you will come to the conclusion very quickly that you live on a planet that is a very poor country. But every measure of the term, a billion people living on less than $1 a day, two billion people living on less than $2.5 a day. It used to be $2, but the dollar ain't what it used to be. So you would come to the conclusion as a planet. It's a fairly poor country. That's not a surprise. You would come to the conclusion it's not just poor. It's a divided country. That famous champagne glass, 80% of the wealth, with now actually less than 10% of its people. You would want the planet to be more like a Burma, an Austrian one, not a German one, but that's what it is. And by divided, I don't mean rich country, poor country. I mean rich person, poor person. I live in Boston. I work in Boston. I work in the first world part of Boston. Three miles away from where I work is Roxbury, which is the third world part of Boston. Some years ago I went back and I worked back in Pakistan as the vice chancellor of the university. I worked in Lahore in defense, which was the first world part of defense. Three miles from where I lived was a place called Bhattachok, the third world part. And that's what I mean by you would come to the conclusion it's a poor planet. It's a divided planet. You will come to the conclusion that it is an insecure planet by every measure of the term. Not just useless war, but climate insecurity, and food insecurity, and water insecurity, and just human insecurity. So you'll come to the conclusion it's an insecure planet. You'll come to the conclusion that it is a degraded planet. Its water isn't clean. Its seas are rising. Its forests are denuded. Its land is degraded. So by all those terms of things that all of you know, none of this is new. You would say the planet as a whole has you and me, people who are doing fairly well. But if it were a country, that is how you would be describing it. You would describe it as a poorly governed planet. I come from Pakistan. I know what poor governance looks like. And even Pakistan looks, if you think about how we do global governance, how we do the UN, even Pakistan looks well-governed sometimes. Not all of this. And you would come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, an unsafe planet. If the US State Department of State had to travel advisory for the planet, it would be to catch the first rocket ship out of here. By the actual means that they actually make those travel advisories. The problem is we don't know where we would go. So I apologize for being so depressing right after lunch. And that's really not my point. My point is that if, in fact, you were to think of the planet as if it was a country, you would come to the conclusion, and I don't usually like this term, that it is what we call or some people call a third world country. And what that means is that we keep trying to manage it, including on climate change, as if it was Sweden. We keep trying to make policies that might work in a different place, but do not work on a third world planet. And that is the global space that all of you, much more than me, but need to, work with. So I want you to keep that context. And in that third world planet, we now are living in what I call the age of adaptation. The age of adaptation, everyone, I hope knows mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation essentially is things you can do to keep climate change from happening. Reduce your carbon. Don't drive and all that stuff. If you reduce your carbon, climate change may not happen. Well, that stage is passed. Adaptation essentially means when it happens, how do you adapt to its impact? And the major point I want to make is we have been talking for about my entire working life, as if adaptation was something that was going to be needed in the future. And I am here, unfortunately, with the tough task of letting you know, as if you don't already, that we have to adapt now. In fact, we are doing it right now. I'll give you just one little factoid. I come from Pakistan in Karachi over the last three days. Three days, Karachi, Pakistan, fairly well in place anyhow. More people have died of heat than have died in Pakistan of terrorism this entire year. Is that because of climate or not? I don't know, and you will never know. What climate does is it exacerbates the threats. What I do know is it's the fourth consecutive year of a heat wave. What I do know is this is the 11th consecutive year of floods in Pakistan and the eighth consecutive year of drought, all at the same time. That is what the age of adaptation means. So if you live in Pakistan or any of the countries that you work in, people are coping with this thing without us being able to name it, pin it, or fingerprint it. Let me tell you very quickly how we came to you, and I'll really rush through this because I want to get to the last part, which is my important part, five tragedies, five pictures. How did we get here? First and foremost, it is, in fact, a great human failure of wisdom. This, to me, is the single most important, interesting graph in all of human history, at least in my field. It is an amazing graph. And they updated, this is an older one, between 1991 and 2012, 13,950 peer-reviewed papers are published in climate change, of which only 24 reject the idea that it's human-induced. I do not know of any other scientific issue, maybe not even gravity, that has the type of consensus that we have on this. And yet, particularly in the country I now live in, the United States, a debate keeps going on needlessly based on this notion that every idea should have two views. Every idea has two sides. No, I'm sorry, some ideas don't have two sides. There's just one side. It's called the right side. And we miss that vote. We got here as a failure, not just a wisdom, but a failure of negotiation. This is the world that I really live in every day. But essentially, the negotiation machine became a negotiation machine where the idea was to keep negotiating. And Paris, while I celebrated because it's there, is also there is not that much in it to celebrate. So for 25 years, we keep negotiating one agreement after the agreement. And the most important aspect of each agreement is we'll meet again in a year to negotiate more. I'm sorry for being cynical. There is much depth in that, but I won't go into it because I'm rushing through that. The more important part is it has been a failure of vulnerability. I think this is where you come in. This is where you come in. In the age of adaptation, we move to where the impacts are. And the impacts aren't necessarily where the emissions are. This is an amazing graph. The first one tells you who is being impacted by climate change. And the second one tells you who, me, is emitting the carbon. And as soon as you see that, that becomes a question of justice because they're nearly the reverse opposite of each other. And therefore, the failure is not just a vulnerability failure. It is a moral failure because climate is, has been, but has not been seen as an issue of justice. So you look at that map, and that map is actually from all places, it's from Standard and Poor, of where the climate vulnerabilities are. But now superimpose that map on where you think the emissions are coming from. And even within those countries, it is the most vulnerable, the most marginalized, the poorest on whom the impacts come. You all know this. I don't need to tell this to this crowd. It's like earthquakes. When earthquakes happen, more poor people die than rich people because the poor do inherit the earth, literally in this case. But they die not because of the earthquake. They die because the roof falls on their head. And if you're poor, you're more likely to have a roof that will fall on your head. Well, climate is the same. When the climate impacts come, the front line are the most vulnerable. And that's the moral argument. I know this argument is lost and described because you know it, my people, the climate people don't always, that's why it is there. But ultimately, it is also a failure of politics. It is a failure of politics globally. And while our honorable president is in the front line of that failure, I'm sorry to say he's not the only one. He's not the only one. And again, I don't have time to rush through that. I just wanted to give that as context. What I do want as my time runs out to put to you, and this really is the crux of where I think you meet climate change, is this idea that what are the new front line issues in climate change in the age of adaptation? That climate has, in fact, in the age of adaptation, climate becomes a development issue. And climate becomes essentially a humanitarian issue. Carbon counters, like myself, have much less to do with it. When the flood comes, my knowledge of how carbon works in the outer atmosphere has very little to do with what can happen to the life of the family whose house is going to be washed away. That's where you come in. So seven issues, if I will, very, very quickly on how adaptation hits us. And the first of them is nature. And some of you might be thinking, why doesn't he have the cute polar bear? I love polar bears. Nothing against polar bears. But I think that picture is misused, because it pulls at your heart's neck. I think it comes from developing people, because they're asking for checks and stuff. But I really love polar bears. But it gives you that picture of the polar bear on the ice in the middle of the ocean. Essentially, what it says is the polar bear is waiting for MSF to come and help it. That nature is out there, helpless, waiting for us. I am not sure that is how nature is responding. I think there's going to be a viciousness. And that viciousness is going to come in disease vectors. That's going to come in dengue. That's going to come in a very delicate balance within nature of a whole bunch of life, a bunch of which we don't even know about, because it's in balance. And when you mess up the balance, the dengue mosquito, because the mosquito is smarter than man, starts moving northwards. There are many other reasons. This is not the only one. People travel, they take them with them, and so on and so forth. But the response of nature is not simply of us going and assisting it. Nature is going to create dynamics, which in your world, I think, the most important aspect, and many in the environment world think are in disease vectors and so on and so forth. Again, I'm in the headline mode here. The big one is water. The biggest difference in the age of adaptation was in the age of mitigation, climate is essentially one box in the periodic table, carbon. Climate is essentially carbon management. Carbon management is essentially energy management. As soon as you come to the age of mitigation, it gets a lot more wet. It's a lot of H, and it's a lot of OH2O. And here is what I mean. Think about the major impact. Not all, but the major impacts of climate. What does climate do? Water rises, sea level rise. Water melts, glaciers. Water disappears, drought. Water falls from the sky like no one's business. Extreme events. The most frontline issue in climate adaptation, impacts, is going to be water. And you're going to be called in a bunch of those issues. I put this, again for my environment crowd, you've probably seen this, that blue dot to scale is all the fresh water in the world. All the fresh water in the world, in to scale, is that blue dot. That doesn't mean actually we have a third of water. There's actually, we have water. It's nearly always or mostly an issue of access or increased use. But what it means, and I'm embarrassed to put this because there are people I'm sure in this room who know this better, but for those who don't know Pakistan, in 2010 we had a major flood. And I put this by way of explaining to those who haven't worked in floods that it's not just a question of water. It's a question of space. So that's Pakistan. The blue area is the one that was covered by the flood. So keep that squiggly, the blue squiggly, in your mind. And so you say, OK, that's a lot of Pakistan underwater. But here is how much it is. I took that squiggly to scale and I put it on a map of the United States. And that squiggly fits from up there in Vermont to down to Florida. I put the same squiggly on a map of Japan. It covers the whole country. I put the same squiggly, the same sort of area covered by it, on Europe, from up there in Denmark to down in France. The point is that when these disasters happen, managing carbon doesn't do anything. It increases the intensity of what you guys are doing and so on and so forth. If it is about water, then it's immediately about food. Because what is food except nature's way of packaging water? Not really. But water immediately triggers the food security questions. And again, I can give you the numbers, but I'll hold them to later. I won't spend this one even though it's one of my favorite ones. A lot of it is about mobility. But it's not about Teslas. No amount of Teslas can do it because the mobility problem is not just emission. The mobility problem is a lot of people not being able to go to a lot of places. And it's going to be solved in very, very different ways. This is what less to do with disasters and humanitarianism and much more to do with how we need to rethink technology and technological inputs into the age of adaptation. But the one I wanted to come to, and I've only got two more and then I end, well, no, actually three, I'm sorry. Infrastructure is similar. You guys know this. I'll rush through it. But infrastructure becomes when you're dealing with this infrastructure and when you have a heat wave. If you thought Paris was difficult, if anyone is following South Asia, because it's not just Pakistan. And then you're seeing this consistently. Part of it is coming from climate, part of coming from just weather, part of it is coming from the way we've expanded infrastructure. All of it adds and superimposes on each other. But the real sort of thing that I wanted to talk about in some ways was to highlight because this is your world is disasters. And when you get the frequency of these disasters, even the minor disasters, just expanding in a place, in number. It not only stresses your resources, it stresses every resource in the country. And one of the things that is more interesting that my current work is on is that climate migration. Migration because of climate disasters is different from a lot of other disaster migration. A lot of disaster migration is there's an earthquake. I lose my house. You set up a camp. I go there. You come and help. That's not how climate migration happens. Climate migration is slow, like torture. One person leaves at a time. And it's usually the youngest, the smartest, the ablest. And communities hollow out because essentially livelihoods are going. My best example is the shrimp in the Sundarbans. Micro millimeter change in salt water, freshwater mix. Changes where the shrimp go. And when the shrimp are not there, the shrimp farmer can't survive. So one by one from the Sundarbans, they go into Chittagong. From Chittagong maybe to Delhi. From Delhi to maybe London. But it's the hollowing out of communities. And it is the vulnerability of communities. That's the way migration, for example, works. And all of this brings us to this last point, which is about insecurity. Therefore, climate change in the age of adaptation is a new layer of insecurities that takes old insecurities and multiplies them. It's a threat multiplier. And this is the other part of my current research. I'll just put it two by two just to prove that I am a professor. And I just don't do only pictures. And then I will leave. In our current work in the book, I had written we tried to think about insecurity. Because security doesn't matter. What matters is insecurity. The only time you talk about security is when you don't have it all across the world. And if you think about insecurity in this fashion, at one end you always talk about the source of insecurity. One is violence. I come and hit you. The other is I don't hit you, but I do something that makes your social disruption, that makes your life more insecure. And the other is whether it's state or society. Again, I'm rushing through this because I'm enjoying myself too much. But here is the simple two by two. When you're talking state insecurity because of violence, you are clearly talking about war. War is certainly about insecurity. And for God's sake, we have too much of it anyhow. But much more than that, more people still die because of violence at the society level than the state level, civil strife. That's also clearly insecurity. But when you're talking about social disruption at the state level, insecurity very often comes, we argue, from institutional failure. In a Western context, you would say the financial crisis, at least in the US, creates insecurity because suddenly lots of people lose livelihoods, load shedding in many countries. And climate exacerbates those institutional failures in ways that we can talk about. And the fourth and most important one to me is that when social disruption at the societal level causes insecurity, the face of that insecurity is human insecurity. It's about those things that I talked about, about water, about food, about livelihoods. My point is not that one of these insecurities is more important than the other. My point is that all of them are equally important. Let me leave you with this one story that some of you have heard, at least online before. This book we did on insecurity, one of the numbers in South Asia. One of the things we found was, and listen to this carefully, it is not a political statement. I will end with this. At that time, 60 years of constant conflict between India and Pakistan, 60 years. The number of Indians, the total number of Indians killed by the Pakistan side in 60 years of constant violence is less than the number of children only who will die in one year only, in New Delhi only, because of dirty water only. The exact same number is true on the Pakistan side for Karachi. Here is my challenge. If you're the mother of one of those children, your child is no less dead, whether she dies at the wrong end of a gun or the wrong end of a tap. And yet, as scholars, as journalists, as humanitarians, as people, we talk about one death as if it is a national tragedy and the other as if it's just a development statistic. Here's my problem. For a quarter century of teaching international affairs, I have no idea what to do about the gun. I know exactly what to do about the tap. At that time, $8.80, the cost of saving one life because of water. I apologize for taking too long. Thank you very much.