 The session before lunch discussed the opportunities for climate policy, particularly within the climate negotiations, and to what extent these can make a difference for the future. However, environmental and climate concerns are rarely the main drivers of policy and investment decisions. Policy has arguably raised quite quickly in the last 10, 20 years in priority, but it's still only on the B list of political priorities. Has not yet reached to the A list, where the real heavy political issues are dealt with, such as welfare, jobs, energy security, competitiveness. These are, we would argue, issues that actually define and determine to what extent we have positive or negative sustainability outcomes. My name is Karl Halding, I'm a senior research fellow here at SCI. And in this session, we shall discuss to what extent and how the A list policies can generate whether without intention, positive or negative outcomes for sustainability and climate change. We will do this as a conversation and I have six colleagues sitting here waiting to come up and join me in this conversation. But before letting Lin Persson on the stage here as a first contributor, I'd like to set the scene to, we're in Sweden and many of you are Swedes, so I take you example from Sweden of how A list priorities actually came to have tremendous import on Sweden's sustainability. But largely unintended actually. We in Sweden brave ourselves for being environmentally friendly, for having very comparatively low carbon emissions, right? How did we end up here with the low carbon emissions? Why do we have low carbon emissions? Is it because of environmental concern in our policymaking? Or some other reasons? Well, I would argue the two main reasons are hydropower and nuclear power. When we took the decision to invest in hydropower, let's go back to the after Second World War times in the 1950s. We made this big investment in developing the hydropower potential of Sweden to develop a growing country, a country whose economy was growing quickly. Security of energy supply was the number one priority and the reason why we invested huge amounts of money in hydropower. Now we go into the 1960s and the nuclear program. Here we have an element of competitive invest as well. Sweden had the bomb. We were in the forefront of technology and it was natural for us to develop nuclear power programs as well. And when we headed into the 1970s, there was the oil crisis and again security of energy supply on the highest level on the political priority. And that's also when the final decisions on the nuclear program were taken. Not at all environmentally informed by environmental concern. Quite the opposite I would say because nuclear was seen as really, really bad for the environment generally. But that's the story. That's the story behind why we have, that's largely the story behind why we have comparatively low carbon emissions, territorial carbon emissions. So none of these stories are about environment concerns. They are about how the priorities on the A list of political priorities came to translate into comparative advantage now in terms of low carbon emissions. Of course, the story isn't that simple. There are definitely side effects of both hydro and nuclear. And there are also the problem of consumption based emissions because these are the territorial based emissions. So, Lin, please join me here and say a few words about is it so simple with the emissions? Well, no, as you've already hinted at.