 So now we are at the end of the panel. We heard some very interesting, we heard from very interesting discussions and arguments. We heard from the developed countries from New York City. We heard comparative examples from Western Europe. We heard more from the developing, did I say developing? Developed countries, we heard from the developing countries from New Delhi and from Istanbul. We heard many different issues such as the importance of proximity, accessibility, correlation of per capita income and car ownership, the importance of financing, technology. We heard about many different concepts, the importance of transparency, accountability, governance. And most importantly, I believe we heard about the importance of political ownership of brave decision makers, as you pointed out. Now since our session is focusing on climate change and transport, I would like to also point out that we heard about the difference of how developed countries tackle the issues of GIG management and CO2 emissions and the difference of how developing countries tackle the issues. We heard that there are no clear CO2 targets in transport policy making and in the decision making process. And we also heard that there are serious challenges in GHG inventories, in measuring GHG, in measurement of CO2 emissions. When we look at some of the ratios, we see that transport originating CO2 emissions per capita. When you compare it, let's say between the US and in the USA, it's about four tons per person. When you look at Europe, it's about two tons per person. When you look at a country such as China, it's 0.5. India, it's much lower than 0.5. Turkey has no estimates clearly publicized, however the estimates that we have made as REC show that it's above one ton. So about one and a half in fact, but it's difficult to justify these numbers. So there is a clear distinction between developed and developing countries. However, according to the COP 15, the negotiations are progressing in such a way that developing countries will also have to have clear targets. So now I'll give the floor to Philip Rhodes who will start the discussions on these issues. Thank you. Thank you, Isabel. Yeah, we come to the second half and we're going to have a good 40 minutes for the discussion. So unlike yesterday, I have asked our discussants to be very quick with the first reflection on what they have just heard bringing in their own experience and then hopefully we'll have more time to go around the table several times. So our first reflector or respondent here is Sanjeev Sanyal. Sanjeev is the president of the Sustainable Planet Institute from Delhi. Thank you, Philip. What I'm going to say will have somewhat of a developing country perspective, but it is equally equitable to developed countries. As you know, developing countries have the bulk of the urban population of the world, but even more so, going forward, virtually all the future urbanization will happen in developing countries. India alone will add 350 to 400 million people to its urban spaces in the next 30 years. What is interesting about this, of course, is that these urban spaces do not exist at this point in time. So we have an opportunity here to really guide the way this happens. And in this context, I was particularly happy to hear where Jeanette has to talk about non-motorized transport, particularly walkability. Here is the most advanced city in the world, essentially talking about creating non-motorized forms of transport. And it's critical for us to understand this because we are still building cities in the developing world with essentially the car in mind. I live in Gurgaon, which is a brand new city. It went from wheat fields to a population of 3.5 million in 10 years' time. And essentially, there's not even one square meter of sidewalks in that city. It's entirely based on some form of car transport. It doesn't mean people don't walk, but they walk on the side of the road, get killed, etc., etc. So this is a very, very important issue. Now, it doesn't mean, of course, that people in developing countries do not already walk. In fact, when you talk about public transport, walkability is by far the most important form of public transport. Just to give you some statistics, in Bombay, which is probably the worst place in the world to walk, 56% or thereabouts of the population walks the entire way for most of their journeys. Of the rest, another 40% uses public transport, which of course means that the last mile or the first mile is also walked. So well over 90% of the population is walking part or all of their journey. And yet, whenever I bring up this point, everybody pats me on the back and begins discussing buses and trams and taxis. Clearly, buses and trains are important, but there is no doubt in my mind that walkability and its sister form, cycling, is by far the most important form of public transport. This is where the focus has got to be. Now, when we are talking about developing countries, as I mentioned, an important aspect of this is the fact that these urban spaces do not exist. And this is important because urban form has a very important bearing on how walkability in particular works. Because we do not have the urban form, we can create the kinds of density and urban forms that work for walkability. Again, as I said, whenever I bring up these topics, I'm patted on the back, the debate that moves on to buses. I'm nothing against what Geetham has to say, but from what I had to see from her presentation, the best thing about her project is the fact that it gave so much emphasis on cycling and walking on the side. The fact that it improved the speed of buses is an interesting side effect, as far as I'm concerned. Thank you. Thank you, Sandy. We are moving to our second discussant, that's Dimitri Sangelli. He is the chief climate economist at Cisco, and he is also a visiting tutor at the London School of Economics at the recently established Grantham Institute for Climate Change. Thank you, Philip. You asked before that I should outline some of the areas that Cisco are involved in, in terms of urban sustainability, and I'll do that. But I just thought, following yesterday's interesting discussion, I might try and tie in some of that discussion into the present session we're having on climate change. It struck me that we're all familiar with the fact that cities are the engines of growth. They are centers of dynamism and creativity. But what is it that makes them unique? And as you say, what is it that puts them in the position to be part of the solution, as you said in your introduction? And I think cities have certain unique ingredients, apart from taking account of more and more of the world's population. They also offer a unique blend of diversity and specialization, which allows for a pool of talents that can operate together and at scale very, very quickly. And this environment is one that breeds successful innovation, not just research and development, but all the way through to demonstration and commercialization. You need that mix of talents and creativity, and you need the scale and density with which to do that. And I'm talking here not just innovation in technology and widgets and machines and the kinds of things you and I normally think about, but also innovation in rules, in policies, in institutions, and as was mentioned before, in governance, good governance. Because I think that's central to understanding how you can bring about a successful city, the sustainability, and of course, in other criteria. And then cities can compete and learn from best practice. So a model that works in one city can be applied elsewhere. It might be totally useless in a third city. But you have this urban competition and these frameworks that can be applied more generally. But it requires good governance. It requires leadership from mayors, from regional governments, and also partnership, I think, with national governments. It's very difficult for a city to work alone without a lead at the national or at the state level. And if that governance is credible and sends out a long-term signal to businesses, then they will innovate and they will invest if they feel that markets exist into the medium and long-term. The option to take a dirty route to development, which may have applied to some heavy industrial, trade-orientated, export-orientated development paths for some cities in the past is going to become less and less viable as we go forward. The reason being that the world is going to become carbon constrained and massive new markets and opportunities are going to avail themselves there. And those cities, those countries, those companies that try and avoid adjusting to that inevitable change are going to lose out on the ability to take advantage of new markets, to set technologies, to establish institutions, and to be able to profit from what is ultimately a very large opportunity. Cisco is one company that clearly does see huge opportunities here. On the transport area, it's investing very heavily in travel substitution, collaborative tools, videos, smart workstations where you don't have to go into the office but you can go into a local business-centered type area. Personal transit assistance that allow you to have a real-time mapping of what's going on in your local area, how you can connect buses to trains and so on. Eco-mapping, full earth observation down to nano-sensory, allowing things to be smarter, dumb machines can start operating just in time, smart building, smart distribution networks, smart generation, et cetera. Things can be a lot more efficient if they operate in a coordinated manner. So anything with the word smart in it has a role for a company like Cisco. But it's also energy-intensive companies that are moving. That's why we're seeing Honda and Shell and Toyota and GE. These companies make their money out of being energy and currently carbon-intensive and they see that their markets will be wiped out the way the world is going. So they're investing incredibly heavily in low-carbon technologies and low-carbon innovations. And so I think cities and governments can learn from the way business is going, at least from the way smart business, forward-looking business is going, and setting out the right policy frameworks and the right governance institutions to try and make for less resource-intensive, more sustainable, and more livable urban environments. Thank you very much. I think that's a crucial point what you said about, in a way, enabling sustainability policy means enabling the city as such and links it directly back to the overall agenda of the urban age. Let's move to our next discussion. Hilmar von Leewske, Hilmar is a program manager of GTZ, the German Technical Corporation in Damascus. Thank you, Philip. Some rather personal observations and I would like to link them to some stages of development. I think we have left the cynical stage also in Syria on climate change, the cynical stage which says, well, we are in the Damascus Valley at 700 meter height. We have observed that our harbour, our entry ports in Syria are prone to the water. We have observed that drought drives thousands of people into the cities where we do not cope with their resettlement. We are in the analytical stage for sure and the analytical stage as we have observed here also today is quite clear. What we haven't probably analysed sufficiently is yet the psychological dimension of how to use individual traffic and how to use energy-consuming devices. We are focusing in the Middle East primarily on the role a car plays in social recognition and the mechanisms, how it comes that the rate of the car sales in this region exceeds any other or many other regions in Europe. Well, the difference is not much from China and the role which might be a minor issue, the role of the AC in society. The AC is not being turned off anymore in Syria, in middle-class households and offices of the government. The AC runs six months for cooling and six months for heating, I have the impression, and maybe it might be worse to explore a little bit more on the status symbol of ACs and cars because they have a tremendous impact on energy consumption. I'm quite optimistic on the other hand about the analytical findings which we have experienced here today. But I'm again very pessimistic about the policy development of countries like Syria because I cannot observe that any action is taken to strengthen, for example, pedestrians. Maybe we are still in the cynical stage how we treat pedestrians throughout this region and observing in my own day-to-day moves in a city like Damascus how thousands of pedestrians are drawn up very fragile staircases to cross an eight-lane street which is absolutely useless and then being drawn down again. Then I believe that the recognition of the pedestrian as the solution to individual traffic in the city is still a long way to go. Maybe urban age should take up or gather its joint efforts to ask for a year of the pedestrians launched by the United Nations. When I look at my individual behavior, I'm also quite pessimistic because I'm one of these persons who switches between SUV and folding bicycle. Maybe there is a reason to be optimistic and behavioral change because the last week I have been called twice by Porsche Cayenne drivers in Damascus asking where I got my folding bike from, first looking at me like an alien and then asking where I got my folding bike from. Maybe behavioral change is a chance even in a society where a car plays such a great role. To come to an end, I think I'm very proud of what my profession, the traffic planners, are able to provide in terms of analytical knowledge and power. I'm again quite pessimistic about the politicians taking it up and bringing it to decisions. So living in a country like Syria, which frankly spoken I would regard as a kind of guided democracy, I see a chance as a planner for top-down decisions only. As long as these decisions are not taking top-down what mean of transport to use and making offers to the users of the city which are not somewhat escapable, which we have to use. Unless this is not done, I'm pessimistic about the changes in traffic in cities like Damascus or any other larger cities throughout the world. I haven't explored yet on settlement patterns which might be worth to do in the discussion to come up but I focus now on traffic only as for me most decisive trigger for emission reduction in agglomerations. Thank you, Hemar. Our next speaker is Semi-Ary Yildiz. He's a professor of architecture and organization at Istanbul Aydin University. Thank you very much and thank you for very interesting ideas and proposals as a Turkish panelist. Nowadays I'm just working on Hadid plan to give green light to Hadid plan or greenize it a little bit. Also I think our colleague Mr. Bercek is one of the best choice about our transport policy in Istanbul and just generally might be we had different differences of ideas, beliefs and observations. Very hard about the success stories, about the essence, about the city, about the mobility. We believe eco-cities sustaining water energy food inside the city for all the inhabitants as planners and designers. We should design, plan, decide, behave. Cities to be able to sustain. People should be deciding as workers and farmers, city farmers. And we should think and behave eco or logic of eco, natural, aesthetic, etic, bio-climatic. But we should leave these differences and about practical ideas. First I try to in a way give a proposal, create for Istanbul we need one single agency Marmara Authority might be like London Transport Authority and a little bit more to act, to enact, to behave. Find and spend money on his plans and programs. This is the first. And about we all oppose against the Third Bridge. It's not just opposition. We have many proposals. One I have written 15 years ago in architect, one of the Turkish oldest architectural magazine. We can double one of the, make it duplex, one of our bridges as in New York in Second World War. And might be we can put some ferry stations to Silevri and Pendik and make free passage for our trans-passing people. You know there was two emperors. Their idea was going to Berlin. They are not existing but their ideas are going to be realized now in 2014. But they will go from Baghdad to Berlin without passing, without crossing any or our soil. But in order to go from my place to Nisantashi to my home to Kartal I will make three shifts in this transport system. If it's going to be finalized. There should be some solutions for this. And also we have, you mentioned about electrical cars and no hybrid cars. Today Turkish car industry announced fully electric cars. They are going to produce 10,000 but they are going to export. I offer to ban this export and to use it in Istanbul. And also they say they are using energy from the kind of non-sustainable sources. But it can be designed in their cover, in their houses. They can sustain all their energy on their owners' residences and all oil stations must be obliged to recharge spare batteries. We designed as architects interesting oil stations with flags or very interesting designs for all oil stations. And also we could limit as in many countries our bridges will charge 20 euros if they will pass one. And if they will pass five they will charge two euros. It's very simple. We are saying to you but to make more advice, to take more advice might be more interesting advices like this. And we talk about cycling and walking as they mentioned. If you try to walk or cycle in Istanbul now it's a kind of committing suicide. You cannot. But it's possible. We need to transport our cycles or electrical cycles in future to transport to higher to the tops of our city or from one place water, like boat to the others, something like that. We need more creative ideas like or the other examples. If there will be time then these those are our common points. But if we will have time we will talk about our contradictions about the idea of city, idea of mobility, and idea of sensing human and nature and being creative creation. Thank you. Last but not least I'd like to invite Sonia Francine Gaspar Maramo from who is the sub mayor of the Lapa district in Sao Paulo. Thank you. First of all it's very good to be reminded how we politicians, policymakers, decision makers have to be brave to fight a lot of resistance, habits, behavior. Like in Brazil one of the main measures the government took to fight the economical crisis was cutting federal taxes on cars so that we could sell more cars and we could have less unemployment. So there's a lot to fight. And although it is quite dangerous to say so, one of the drawbacks of democracy is that the majority could well be wrong. Like we were told yesterday, people are very concerned about congestion, about the traffic, but 80% of the non-car owners would like to own one, would own a car if they could. So sometimes really we have to fight the majority maybe. And that's very hard on politicians because everyone is a specialist. Everyone thinks we know the best way to use the street we live in. So there's a lot to fight and one of the, probably one of the best ways to fight that is to take rapid action. If you can find some very quick, easy measures that show the results in the short run, then you can easily fight resistance because you can please both the utilitarian minds by showing them that you can reduce traveling time and emissions. And also the dreamers minds who can believe that change can really be performed. But I think we haven't put enough emphasis on one point. We all agree. Let me quote you, things that have been said today. Like there's this lack of integration of land use and transportation, the need for proximity. We need to talk about settlement patterns. We need to reduce travel demands. And I think that's a point we haven't discussed enough. Like in Sao Paulo, the east part of Sao Paulo, which is very big, like the farthest point is 30 kilometers far from the city center. And I'm talking about the city itself, not the metropolitan area. So in the east part of Sao Paulo, we have a population of 3 million people, which is more or less the population of Uruguay. And every day 2.5 million people travel towards the city center in the morning and back in the afternoon to work because the city is still sprawling, the population is growing in the extremities, but not the economical activity, not the jobs. They're not moving further from the center, so people still have to move every day to travel very far to the center and then back home. So we know that that's a problem. There's no way you can really provide with comfortable, predictable transportation for that many people for 2.5 million going in the same direction at the same time. So our subway is overcrowded, the trains, the highways, the buses, they're all overloaded. And unless we pile subway lines, we will never make it. So we have to reduce the need for those many, many travels. And we all know that one of the answers for that and for walkability, et cetera, is the mixed use of city soil, providing with many different things at one same place. So we all agree on that, but we haven't really come to discuss how to do that, how government can do that, how the private sector should do that with the being pressed by or with incentives from the government. We have many creative solutions, bus lanes, cycle lanes, pedestrian lanes, but how to promote the mixed use of the urban soil. So some things strike me as being very simple, but we don't do them. Like when you have these mass housing projects, well, some time ago in Sao Paulo, you just built 400,000 units in the middle of nowhere. And nowadays, fortunately, we have realized that you have to provide schooling and health service, et cetera, but still we're not providing with space for commerce and services. So why not? And then people who live in these huge mass projects, we push them into informality. They buy from street vendors, they become street vendors, and far from where they live, in the city center. So that seems to me quite easy to do when the government builds these huge mass housing projects. Why not provide with the area, with the possibility of offering jobs and services and commerce where people live? So that could start by to reduce the number of travels of traveling demand. Thank you. Thank you so much. I would like to open the discussion with a brief reference to yesterday. I think we had a very enlightened talk by Soketo Mehta about storytelling and particular kinds of storytelling. And I think what we heard about walkability, what we heard about mixed use and proximity just goes, unfortunately, pretty much against the storytelling, the classic narrative about the globalizing, the progression of the big city, where I'd say the classic narrative is much more about bridges like the one behind me. It's about the massive infrastructure projects we have seen. And I would like to use the reference to walking in particular, because it's such a humble means of transport, to ask Janet the following question, because in a way she introduced a very enlightened strategy for New York City. If I'm right, I got the statistics also, thanks to Haloguercek. The total percentage of people walking in the city is about 50%. But the budget spent on walking and cycling together over the last 10 years in the city has been 2%. There's a very clear bias towards the long distance, towards the motorized mobility. And we are discriminating proximity and slow transport. Well, as an economist would probably point out, you have to do this because to take advantage of a large agglomeration, you need to have access across space. So I just wondered in New York City, which of course has a very established transit network and offers the distant mobility already, how is this discourse at the moment seen, where you talk about investments for slow transport, slow movement, reinforcing proximity versus the big narrative on the global city? Well, I think it's important to understand that the residents of New York City spent about 2 years coming together around tables like this, talking about what they want the future of New York City to be like. And in 25 years, when they walk out their door, are they going to like what they see? And so that led to the Plan YC Sustainability Agenda, which is widely bought into by New Yorkers. And so that really set the table in a very different way. It's really important, I believe, that you have a game plan going forward that the public buys into. And that allows you to move forward with different kinds of strategies that might not be as politically acceptable as one might think. I have to underscore that walking and biking are not expensive investments to make. Even the transformation that we did on Broadway only cost $1.5 million. You can outline a city, you can outline what a future of the city can look like. You can take that approach in any of the developed or developing countries. And so, again, it's really repurposing the existing infrastructure that's there. It's making a bold decision like Mayor Bloomberg has done to say, we're going to use the real estate of our streets differently. We're going to build in public transit. We're going to build in mass transit. We're going to build in a dedicated cycling system. And we're going to build a city for walking. And it's dollars and cents. It's not just window dressing. What we've seen is that property values, retail values, commercial values go dramatically up when you've got quality public space. And when you create an attractive public realm. Thank you. Let me pass over to Haluk to respond. Well, in Istanbul, as I tried to explain, the walking share of the total trips is about 50%, which it seems great amount of people walking. But I think this is due to mainly two reasons. First of all, mostly people try to avoid choosing their destination that they cannot walk because they get stuck in the traffic. I know from my own experience that if I have a choices to make a trip, I would prefer destination location within my walking distance because I know if I go into my car or in public transit, I will get stuck in the traffic for minutes and minutes. So this is one reason. The other reason which could be a good one is that the city is growing in a polycentric way. And then you can find a lot of location within your walking distance and you prefer walking rather than getting on the motor vehicle traffic. But if you look at the conditions of the sidewalks and the walking facilities, it is not great. We know that. I mean, you sometimes put your life in danger when you try from going A to B in any location in the city because city is more or less designed for the vehicles. And for cycling, I think there are rumors about the cycling network of about 1,000 km in the city for 2020s. But there is no clear decision about how to implement it. It's just on the paper. So cycling, it's totally out of focus here. So I would say that the policy makers should focus on this non-motorized transport here in the city to increase the potential for walking and cycling. Thank you. Another point I picked up from Hilma, I think, is this general view on lifestyle change. And Gita already highlighted that. Technology alone is not going to do it. And I think your example of the SUV driver asking for the folding bike is a very intriguing one. And maybe Gita, you want to reflect on the notion of an emerging middle class in India eager to, in a way, get into the more traditional mode of material consumption and whether you see at all opportunities of the leapfrogging towards the more green technology and the more green behavior. A difficult question. But let me, in fact, I could answer this by sharing my experience with you since 1996 when the first plan was prepared for Delhi government. It was called the Bicycle Master Plan for Delhi. And it was in 1998 suggesting that how streets could be designed differently to create more walkable and bicycle-friendly streets. And bicycle and bus project was just an offshoot of that. At that time, all policy makers and, in fact, even the experts in the city confronted us with saying that we thought you people were from school, institute of technology. Why are you talking about walking and bicycles? That was the first thing. Up to 2002, there was no discussion on that. Delhi government which had funded this project has shelved it. And only when the same thing we started talking in terms of buses and we just internally decided the bicycle lanes and the pedestrian paths are there, but let us not discuss it. Because we realized that many of the policy makers and bureaucrats, if you show them a drawing, they cannot understand what's in the drawing. So we just kept talking about buses and improving space for cars because the bicycles won't be there and the pedestrian will not be walking in front of the car and the buses. That's how actually the project got by in by the government. There was no discussion otherwise. And during construction, as I just showed you, that when they actually realize that how the cars are being affected, this really hostile media reaction started. So that is one and therefore my answer to your question is that middle class definitely is aspiring to have cars. There is no doubt about it. And I think our policies are reinforcing that. Because if we keep on building infrastructure which makes it easier for you to use your car, then more people are going to use it. There is enough. And in fact, fortunately, I would say in Indian cities, there are enough people walking and bicycling also because of our settlement patterns, because we already have mixed land use patterns, sometimes by planning and often by defying formal plans. So if that is the case, then actually there is a huge opportunity that we can actually get these potential users and we can convert captive users, people who are using these modes in a very hostile conditions, to become choice users by creating the right kind of infrastructure. But I would say that it is a huge uphill task. Sanjeev, do you see any additional opportunities along that line? Absolutely. Having talked so aggressively about walkability, I would certainly add that the case for Bombay is in fact not making the real case. The point is that most of the urban population don't live in these gigantic cities. They actually live in much, much smaller cities, where walking is more than feasible. I mean, you don't even have to make those long journeys in most of these cities. So when we are talking about walkability at an urban age, it's not just about the gigantic cities, it is about much smaller cities. And yet, when we build the infrastructure as Gita pointed out, we create it almost deliberately subvert walking. I'll give you an example since I talked about Gurgaon, city of 3.5 million. It has the National Highway 8, 10 lanes of it going right through the middle of the city. And in fact, there are exactly 5 places where you can cross it by foot. Now what happens is that you have now introduced public transport on it using buses. And anybody using the buses once a day is on the wrong side of the road. So then he has to run across 10 lanes and of course, till they recently blocked the passage, something like 30, 40 people were getting killed every year crossing this road. So the point is we are almost setting ourselves up for this problem, even though it doesn't take much, people do want to walk. Thank you. Dimitri, can I come back to you as the only economist on the table? And the following question, you have heard a lot about very tangible projects, projects that can happen on the ground to help us with the climate change challenge. At the meeting in Copenhagen, cities are not going to be that prominent. In fact, there are many city leaders that are fighting for a greater voice. But I think there is sort of an agreement, you need to get the international frameworks right, particularly the prices, and then the city will sort out itself. How do you reflect as an economist on these more, not top down, but rather precise ideas on the ground how change can actually happen while at the same time I think giving flexibility towards the solutions? I think if you reflect on a table like this, one gets sort of a bit of a prescriptive idea. There's BRT, there's walking. I think we do not see at an international level that kind of tangible thinking, which also helps for the general public to engage more in these very broad numbers about 2050. What are your thoughts on that? I mean, I think you've captured it very well there, Philip. I mean, I think you do need to allow cities the flexibility to be innovative, to be creative, to set policy frameworks that are different to other cities or to copy best practice in the same way as other cities. However, it's much harder for cities to have a successful environment with which to tackle climate change and to provide incentives for low carbon technologies if they don't take a lead from government at the national level. Very often a lot of the rules relating to fiscal policy taxation but also standards and regulations come at the government, at the state level. Not all of them, but a lot of them do. It's much easier to implement the kinds of policies we've talked about here in terms of transportation, but also in terms of buildings and in terms of things like combined heat and power and so on, which cities are very well placed to do. It's much easier to do that if there's actually a price for carbon, for example, so that businesses feel that they can make a return, either selling carbon credits or avoiding a carbon tax. It's much easier to do that if there are standards and regulations at the national level so that businesses are not only investing in new products and processes for one or two cities, but they're doing it at scale across a country. So I think national policy is very important, and then taking it one step further up, national policy only makes sense if it's part of a global collaborative approach. A ton of carbon emitted here in Istanbul does the same damage as a ton of carbon emitted in Zbrook. The origin of that ton of carbon makes no difference. So if only some countries are acting and others aren't, then it is a valid concern that some of your actions won't be as effective. I won't say wasted because sooner or later all countries will be acting to some degree. Those that move first may get less bang for their buck in terms of the global contribution, but actually they may steal a march in terms of being early movers. So I think you do need a coordinated policy approach at the international level. You need a lead at the national level, but you need cities also to have the flexibility to undertake the kinds of policies that we're talking about, and that does require good leadership and good governance at the city level, but it also requires leadership at the national level as well and collaboration at the global level. All right. Well, before closing the session, I would like to remind everyone that we started the panel by making the comment that cities are highly vulnerable to impacts of climate change. Therefore, when we discuss climate change, we do not only mention mitigation, but of course adaptation, and this involves transport, especially transport, how to adopt to climate change. We heard of very good examples. We heard of the differences between developed countries' approaches in developing countries. We heard differences among developed countries, for example, per capita emissions related to transport in the U.S.