 Good morning. Welcome to this launch of the World Economic Forum Global Risk Report 2020, our 15th edition. My name is Adrian Monk from the World Economic Forum. Delighted to be joined on the panel this morning by Berger Brande, president of the World Economic Forum, my colleague Marek Dusek, by John Drizek from Marsh McClannan, by Peter Geiger from Zurich, and my colleague Emily Farnworth from the Forum who runs our climate work. We'll be hearing from each and every one of them this morning. Hope you've all had a chance to look at the highlights from the report that's on your seats. For everyone joining online, there's a website. You can go check the report out. But I'm going to start by looking at the headlines from this report and the things that are really causing global concern. And I'm going to turn to that to Berger Brande, Berger. Thank you, Adrian. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us at the presentation of the 15th Global Risk Report by the World Economic Forum. The launch is taking place just a couple of days before our 50th anniversary in Davos next week. And I have to admit that the global risk picture is worrisome. And we are also seeing risks that are also increasing, that we have to really deal with. If we look at the report, it is a fact that the last five years have been the hottest ever on our planet. And we are seeing that climate change and also environmental risks long term are increasing in the survey. For the first time in 15 years in our risk report, when we look at the 10 years outlook, climate change and environmental risks are 5 out of 5 when it comes to likeliness in the report. And 4 out of 5 when it comes to impact. So climate change, loss of biodiversity, water scarcity is the major long term risk. The planet is heating. The ice is melting. And we see that the library of species are on fire. And we have to take this really, really serious. And we have to change our approach. The cost of inaction today far exceeds the cost of action. That's why we now have to start to implement the necessary policies to deal with climate change. It's also very interesting if you look at the younger generation in the survey that we have done for the first time among global shapers. We see that climate change and environmental issues are 5 out of 5 in both categories. 5 out of 5 when it comes to likeliness in the 10 years perspective. But also 5 out of 5 when it comes to impact. In the survey among experts and global leaders, we see on the impact, we see also weapon of mass destruction being 1 out of the 5. If you look at 2020 this year and the risks, we are seeing that the main risks that we are faced with, according to the survey, more than 75% of the leaders and also experts put global geopolitical and economic turmoil and fracturing at the top. We're seeing looming trade wars. We are seeing geopolitical instability. And we're also seeing that this is having negative impact on global growth. We are faced with the synchronized slowdown in the global economy. And we're also faced with the situation where the ammunition that we have to fight a global potential recession are more limited. We see the depth level higher than before the financial crisis in 2008. We also see that trade is no decreasing globally. And we know that trade has been also the engine of growth. And we see that the monetary tools available when in many countries you already have zero interest rates are more limited. And we know that because of the geopolitical tension and lack of cooperation, there would be more difficult to also get global consensus on approaches to deal with such a slowdown. Because that was the strength in 2008 that the global leadership came together and agreed on an orthodox policies to fight a global slowdown. So we are faced with a complex global risk picture in the run up to our annual meeting. What we are seeing, though, in my view, is that the only way to really mitigate the risk is that we come together in a multi-stakeholder way. We've also mobilized business, civil society, and governments. That is also the approach of the World Economic Forum in the 50 years where our organization, the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation, has been working. Thank you. Berger, thank you very much. Mirek, you've been involved behind the scenes in putting this report together. Can you give us a little bit of a deeper dive into some of the numbers and figures behind it? Thanks, Adrian. Indeed, let me give you a little more detail. I'll talk about the survey results, and I'll show them to you. And then I'll talk a little bit about the thematic chapters that are really allowing us to delve deeper into some of the issues. Some basics for you. We survey every year between 701,000 people from all walks of life. This year, it was close to 800 respondents. And as Berger mentioned, this year, for the first time, we overlay that with young people, representatives of the future or the younger generation, which gives us some additional results. What we do is we ask two questions. One is for the year ahead. So what are the risks that are most likely to increase for the year ahead? That would be 2020, because we conducted the survey in September or October last year. And then we ask, of course, about the long-term risks over a 10-year horizon. So the 2020 top risks, some of them Berger addressed. So just very quickly, top of the charts, if you will, is economic confrontation, which is confrontations among major parties, which is a repeat from last year. Domestic political polarization number two. So really, the complex geoeconomic geopolitical picture internationally and also a heightened atmospherics in many societies. What follows are two environment-related risks, extreme heat waves and destruction of natural ecosystems. That's new. Last year, we didn't have that for the imminent short-term risk. And it could again be stemming from that wake-up call 2019 around the public consciousness around the environmental risks. And the fifth one for 2020, according to the survey, of course, is cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, health, transport, energy. And cyber attacks has been something we've been tracking for a number of years. So those are the short-term risks. Long-term, as Borges said, this is the big story, environmental risks. And I'll not go into details there. But it is for the first time that we have these top five risks on a likelihood all environmental. Let me show you the historical evolution here, which could be quite interesting. You see 2007 all the way to 2020. And you see the story of the blue at the beginning, the economic risks. We colored them blue. And then over time, you see this evolution to more green and purple, purple being technology risks. And mind you that we, of course, started really tracking the environmental risks for a number of years now. So it's not something that is completely out of nowhere. So the thematic chapter is very briefly. The first chapter is an unsettled world. Borges talked about it. To me, personally, this unlocks the whole report. It is the super risk, if you will, because all the other risks that we need to content with are that there is this drag on us being able to tackle them, which is this more polarized, more competitive world there. This follows with a, always followed by the frank fundamentals, a chapter around economic systems and the interplay of the economic systems with the heightened social atmospherics in certain countries. I will not repeat around, of course, the dead levels, lower trade values. We also see a decrease in FDI over the past few years. So this is just now we are in a synchronized lowdown. And do we have the tools necessary to get out of it? Two other chapters around the environment. So connected to the fact that we do have the environmental risk top of the chart. So a decade left around, of course, the risk of all the imperative of climate mitigation and adaptation. And then save the axolotl, which is this animal, a salamander-like animal living in Mexico, almost extinct, very endangered. And it's the embodiment of the accelerated biodiversity loss that we're tracking. We're right now at a moment when the biodiversity loss is at a most heightened pace. According to conservative estimates, we are losing between 200 and 2,000 species every year. So this is something that, of course, is of critical importance. And finally, we have two other chapters where we delve into technological risks and health care risks. Technology, we track a lot of cyber theft and cyber attacks. And we also write about, of course, the lack of technology governance globally. And so we see all these what we call Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies that are really reshaping industry, economy, and societies at large. But we don't seem to have the momentum necessary to really have agreed protocols on those to make sure there is a positive impact for society. And health care, we think this is a blind spot. That's why we write about this, because there is these lingering risks. We can seem to be able to close on some of these things like polio. There is always a few countries that are still remaining in our ability to really eradicate this disease. We also see now vaccine hesitancy, and we see drug resistance around antibiotics that is actually reversing some of our ability to tackle infectious diseases and pandemics. And then we, of course, have some new risks stemming from some technological advances. And of course, the biggest killer now is the non-communicable diseases and what it means for health care systems. Mary, thank you. John, can you just take us through what companies can do to adapt and respond to some of these massive risks that we've outlined in this year's report? Sure. And thanks, Adrian, and good morning, everyone. As you've just heard, around this year's report, probably the most striking aspect is the clustering of the top risks in the, from the environmental sphere. And that that is the first time in the report's history that the top five risks on a long-term likelihood basis are all from the environment. So I want to focus my comments there and focus on the response of companies to this emerging pressure. So just a couple of comments on the climate. I mean, it's a situation where all key indicators are pointing to that this is a situation that's bad and it's getting worse. Climate impact is very visible in 2019. You saw it in wildfires. And in Australia, in California, in Europe, you saw it in cyclones and floods and other forms of extreme weather and the impact that stems from those on crop production and agriculture, on the livability of coastal areas, and so forth. So there's a mounting pressure for activism or for action and coming in the forms of climate activism in the forms of green agendas getting becoming very substantive in the discussions around political elections. And so there's a lot of pressure on the public sector to act with respect to climate. But as Borga indicated, given the fractured geopolitical environment, it's harder to achieve that type of multilateral top-down action. That would be an effective public sector response for climate. So the pressure is also getting channeled to the public, to the private sector. And that's really where I want to focus most of my comments, which is really that the business community now, I think needs to focus more attention and with more urgency on both the risk stemming from climate, but also the opportunities that are going to stem from climate change as well. So focusing first on the sources of pressure, which I think are growing and intensifying. Regulators are starting to require more transparency. You see that with the Bank of England requirements for banks and insurers to stress tests on climate risk. And you see the other forms of more voluntary disclosure, such as with the TCFD. You see investors starting to focus more in this area. So the Climate Action 100, which is actually now 370 investors representing $40 trillion of investment, are starting to push companies to take bolder steps in relation to climate. You would have seen on Monday that BlackRock joined that group adding $7 trillion of investment. And so that's a powerful force for executives to think about when $40 trillion of investment dollars are now looking at climate through this lens. Rating agencies are using climate and risk assessments. Employees are demanding action. You saw that with the Big Tech employee walkouts in with Amazon and Microsoft and Google. And you see it in the form of customer preferences and companies that need to respond to the shifting preference toward green products and services. So all of the stakeholder groups in business, whether investors, employees, customers, regulators, are all starting to bring more attention to this issue. And I think it will focus attention in the executive suite. So I think businesses will take actions in two ways. One is looking at how they can become more resilient to the climate change that's coming. And I think that starts perhaps by looking at the physical risks and supply chain risks that they are going to need to grapple with that come from climate change. But I think coming back to the pressures I was just citing, there's now risk for businesses related to unexpected regulatory change, rapid shifts in customer preference, reputational issues that could stem from employee pressures, loss of investors, potentially litigation for either acting or their inaction with respect to climate change. So I think this is gonna grab more attention and we would strongly urge companies to be proactive in evaluating the risks and the financial impact of the climate change on their business. And I think today's improved risk modeling technology enables that type of quantification to be done and for businesses to be put in a position to manage and mitigate their risk better. Finally, just looking at doing the same type of analysis around how climate scenarios can create risk issues for companies. Also, I think we'll kick out opportunities for many businesses and where there can now be action taken with respect to climate really strictly for the commercial interest of the business. And this would be potentially opportunities in new markets or expanding markets that relate to climate change like renewable energy, like new forms of agriculture. It could be in financing climate resilience investments and infrastructure. It could be in innovating new insurance instruments to transfer risk from the public sector to the private sector and help rebuild communities quickly. And I think other opportunities will emerge really just in response to more climate sensitive customer preferences. So finally, just wrapping up, pressure is growing, business leaders should really consider the actions they need to take much more urgently. And I think that will help both in the mitigation of some of the risks, but also in contributing to the overall progress on climate change. Thanks, John. Peter, can you talk us through some of the biodiversity risks and some of the issues around climate change transition? Yeah, thank you. Well, the next decade will prove to be a critical few years for the future of greenhouse gas emission mitigation and adaption to the physical consequences of climate change. Climate change certainly started as an environmental threat, but the transition required is a process of far-reaching, structural, economic, technological, and social changes. Transition risks are becoming increasingly apparent. The longer we wait, the more painful the transition will be. Each major economy looks different and will respond differently to transition risks, depending on which part of the economy is transitioned and how quickly. Actions to reduce emissions in one carbon-intensive sector can impact the actions in other sectors. There are at least three dimensions to this transition problem, depending on how technological, economic, societal transition pathway develop in different environments. Technological change alone will cause the ending of assets. Across many sectors, such as mining and power chain, there are changes towards lower carbon technologies that will transform these sectors. Economic incentives and drivers are needed from governments, but with the consent of electorates. In a multi-polar and multi-conceptual world, nationalist and populist agendas are often not aligned with such policies. Economic drivers of transition create complex interactions of value, loss, and gain. Multiple strands of policy are often conflated in transition risk modeling, which in itself is in its infancy. Those climate policies will lead to social impacts. Making the transition to a prosperous, resilient, and zero-carbon economy quickly, effectively, and equitably is an existential challenge for everyone on this planet, including investors and workers. Establishing safety nets for workers, creating decent green jobs, and including impacted communities in planning would help ensure the well-being of groups disproportionately affected by market shifts. At the same time, biodiversity is declining faster than it has at any other time in human history, and is threatening life on our planet. Humanity has already caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals and half of the plants. Our food and health systems are tied to ecosystems. We rely on biodiversity in fundamentals way, from pollinating crops to curing diseases. But perhaps an even more important implication is that we are faced with a vicious cycle. Biodiversity loss and a warming planet are closely linked. The exacerbation of one can often lead to the acceleration of the other, and vice versa. Faced with this challenge, businesses, consumers, and regulators must act to shift paradigms and prioritize investments for safeguarding the planet we live on. The dramatic loss of biodiversity not only brings serious risks for societies and the health of the planet, it will also have a profound impact on our economies and the businesses we operate within them. Businesses must therefore take account for ecological risk to their operations and reputations. The greater the biodiversity in the ecosystem, the more likely it is that it will be able to adapt to a change in its environment, including climate change. As such, preserving biodiversity is a measure. Businesses and regulators should use when managing climate change transition risk. Alongside the risk, the next decade brings tremendous opportunity. Technological breakthroughs are happening all the time. Within each sector, there will be winners and losers. Transition risks could be managed through long-term governance, for example, of the renewable technology sector and incentives for clean technology innovation. For emerging economies, technological exchange can help create conditions for forward-looking investment and enhanced involvement. Transition plans must also consider access to energy overall, which today is unevenly distributed. The transition costs estimates are high. However, we start to see the cost of not acting and those costs are equally real. For all of us in the room, in the boardrooms and in the governments, now is the time to take action. Thanks, Peter. Having depressed the heck out of everybody with this report, it would only be right if we offered some glimmers of hope and positivity. So, Emily, you work across the forum's climate change initiatives. Can you give us some reason not to leave the room via the window, but to sort of take the elevator down? I hope so, Asian. Order stairs. Order stairs. Wonderful to be here. I have the privilege at the World Economic Forum of being able to work with many leading businesses, governments, NGOs, and other sort of representatives from society that are really kind of wanting to drive how we can shift gears and solve the climate emergency challenge rather than just kind of hold up their hands, worry about it and not do anything. We have a group of CEOs, our Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders. It's about just over 80 CEOs that have voluntarily stepped forward and decided to really kind of hold the baton on driving change within their own businesses. They got together at a time when, you know, we really needed a global agreement on climate change. So in 2015, having a strong voice from the business community that really did want a signal on how do we really kind of cut emissions in a significant way was extremely important. And they've continued to drive change within their own businesses, looking at ways to reduce energy use, to switch to low-carbon energy, to find new ways of getting themselves and their supplies across the world, et cetera. And we're starting to see the signs of this leadership group to really bring down the emissions. We can see that leading businesses that do respond to surveys on reporting their carbon footprints are actually on track for reducing emissions quite significantly, almost to a point where the scientists are telling us that we need to be. But we do know that this is a leadership group that goes beyond just the 80 CEOs that we work with. It's a leadership group that's across the world is really pioneering what needs to happen. But it's nowhere near where it needs to be. We know that global greenhouse gas emissions have been rising about 1.5% per year for the last decade. What we need for the next decade is to reduce them by 5% per year. So we have an enormous challenge ahead. The good news is that because there have been so many leaders in this space, we know what works. And so it's really about penetrating and accelerating what we know works and so that we can speed up switch to renewables, we can speed up energy efficiency, we can make sure that emerging economies are leapfrogging to clean technologies rather than building the old dirty stuff. But at the same time, we know that some sectors are a little bit more tricky to tackle than others. Some of the harder to abate sectors as they're sometimes called, so sort of cement and steel and chemicals, some of the mobility spaces like shipping and aviation have got a bigger challenge than just switching on the power to renewables. We were amazed, we were asked to support India and Sweden last year to really bring together some of these industry sectors to think about the opportunities that they had to drive emissions reductions. There's a report by the Energy Transitions Commission that demonstrates it's actually possible, theoretically possible for these technology, for these companies to reduce their emissions to get to safe levels by 2050, net zero emissions by 2050 at only a cost of around 0.5% of GDP. So we know it's possible, we have the technology and now after a lot of effort between both governments, as I said, with the leadership of Sweden and India and many others, for some of these harder to abate sectors to step up and the World Economic Forum is partnering with the Energy Transitions Commission and many others to bring together some of these sectors through a mission possible platform to really collaborate on how we can speed up some of the distribution of technologies that these companies need. And I guess the kind of win-win with working with these organizations is many of the solutions that they need are relevant across these different sectors. So when you help one sector shift and move towards net zero emissions, then you can help multiple sectors at the same time. So that's a sort of huge opportunity. These sectors collectively represent about 30% of all energy related carbon dioxide emissions and are growing because of the need for cement, because of the need for goods and services, because of the growth of mobility in emerging economies as well as our own. What we're also recognizing is obviously this link with the need for addressing biodiversity. And another good story is, if we can start to address some of the climate challenges, we can also address some of the issues around nature restoration. There's a huge, we've seen a huge surge in interest from businesses that really want to invest in nature, looking at the opportunity for natural sequestration of carbon in addition to being able to build resiliency, to be able to look at better practices for agriculture, to look at really kind of building out buffer zones for kind of on the edges of rural communities that really need to sort of shift gears in terms of how they're managing land. So that these multiple factors that, as I said, that we have the opportunity to work with some of the leading organizations that really want to make a difference. And I think, you know, that's what we'll be focusing on as we go into our annual meeting next week to talk about how do we accelerate all the good things that are going on and incentivize those that need some extra support to get onto this track. Emily, thank you very much. Got some questions. If you have a question, we have, I think, microphones. Could you just tell us your name and where you're from when you ask your question? And we'll try and see if we can get to as many folks as possible. We're starting with a gentleman there in the middle. I recognize. Yeah, Larry Elliott of The Guardian. The report highlights in a totally uncompromising way the risks of climate change and the threat to the environment. Yet next week, when it comes to the global annual meeting in Davos, lots of these CEOs who are saying they're up for the challenge are going to be flying into Zurich in their private jets. I'd like somebody on the panel to comment on what looks to me like a substantial reality gap between the rhetoric and the action on the ground. I think it's pretty obvious that the best way to travel anywhere is the most sustainable method. And most people who go to Davos actually go by train. And in fact, there's a 50% reduction across the Swiss rail network for everyone going there. And some 30,000 people will be attending by rail. If you look at some of the things we're putting in place, if governments, and they seem to be the worst offenders when it comes to private travel, are going to make the journey, there's now biofuels available at Zurich Airport so they can actually fill up their aircraft with sustainable fuel, you've also got to look out the carbon offsetting we put in place. You can go and visit some of the places that actually benefit from the carbon offset schemes we put in place for the annual meeting. When we do the annual meeting, it's ISO certified, which is quite a complicated process to go through, as I'm sure everyone in the room knows if you've ever been through ISO certification. And the sustainability measures we put in place actually overcompensate for the annual meeting. So for those of you who came here today without compensating your travel, you're probably benefiting from the work we've put in place to compensate for the annual meeting in Davos. So that's good news for all of us. So yeah, I think in terms of actually looking at the sustainability of that meeting, there's a huge amount of effort. I'd be very happy afterwards to connect anyone with the folks who run our sustainability work. I don't know if anyone else wants to chip in on that issue, but it is something we take really seriously because you're absolutely right. There's nothing worse than an organization identifying a risk and failing to do anything about it, which is why we take it so seriously. William Goodwin from Computer Weekly. The report talks a lot about the interconnection of different risks and how they interplay with each other. One of the risks you refer to is large scale cyber attacks and how that could combine with the breakdown of infrastructure, technological infrastructure. Could you elaborate on what these scenarios might be there and also how they might interplay with other risks such as climate change and many things happening at once? Okay, thanks for that. And can we just grab a question from the gentleman in the middle as well? Hi there, Oscar Groot from Yahoo Finance. Sorry, a lot of people think we've already reached a tipping point on climate change. I was talking to somebody the other day who was reading a position paper suggesting we introduced rationing as a way of trying to radical actions, trying to tackle these issues. Deutsche Bank put out a report yesterday last week saying that many of the changes needed to combat it may shock citizens and be difficult to administer in democracies. What sort of changes can we expect to see for the man on the street if all these sort of changes you're suggesting endab us at the top level do get put into place? How is day-to-day life gonna change if governments and businesses take this seriously? Great question. Just turning to the cyber attack issue. Mira, do you wanna hop in on that maybe, John? Yeah, no, this is cyber attacks, cyber theft as you saw also for 2020 cyber attacks to critical infrastructure are top risk. We've been tracking for a while and our cyber center in Geneva recently published a report where they look at the number of cyber attacks and the trend is obvious. They are increasing if you're a cyber professional. This is your bread and butter and increasingly as you may know, the boards, the CEOs and also mainstream decision makers need to contend with planning for cyber emergencies. And as we also then exist more online, there is more of our lives online. So more is at stake. One of the critical infrastructure pieces we talk about is healthcare data and healthcare systems. And we've already seen occurrences of breaches there and that of course then is connected to privacy and other issues that are related to the health systems risk that I talked about. So there I didn't have a chance to elaborate on that but one of the emerging risks is exactly that that you have we exist more in technology on technology where more online our health data is more online and then we are then more vulnerable there in terms of cyber attacks. John, just wanted to add a couple points. One of the connections between cyber and the critical infrastructure attacks are really through the lens of the geopolitical environment that Borg outlined earlier where you see a more fractured environment creates higher risk of state sponsored cyber attacks which by their nature could be more targeted at critical infrastructure. And so I think there's a concern there. The other point that underscore with cyber is there's a second server that we do with the global risk report which is focused on business community and business leaders discussing where their top risk they face are and in advanced economy cyber attacks continues as the number one risk in this year's report. It's obviously a high concern for businesses and a risk that data fraud and theft is another technology risk that kind of came to the fore this year. So I think I wouldn't underestimate the importance of technology risk even though this year's report had a centerpiece on climate. Peter? Well, I mean you ask about the impact on the ban on the street. This is the 15th edition of the global risk report. I see a lot of iPhones out filming us. 15 years ago none of those existed. And I think the key is the world will look different 10, 20, 30 years from today. We have no idea how it will look like. What we're saying is it is key to steer the development in the right direction into a carbon efficient into a low carbon economy. And I think it will affect kind of everyone but everyone will lead a different life 20 years down the road anyway. Emily, we just heard about the costs to individuals and you outlined some of the measures that are being taken. Do we need very stringent almost climate wartime conditions to bring about the reductions you've been talking about? Yeah, it's interesting in terms of how it might impact the day-to-day individual. I think some things probably nobody will notice. If you plug in your kettle to boil some water for a cup of tea, you probably don't really know where your electricity is coming from. If you've got a renewable energy tariff, then that's where you know it's coming from. But it doesn't really change the fact that you can boil a kettle. Similarly, as your pension funds start to green, unless you're really tracking them, you're not necessarily gonna see those differences. But those things that are changing in terms of the energy mix, in terms of the investment into infrastructure and future businesses are things that are gonna be significantly gonna change things. In terms of the more visible pieces, the more visible things, it may be you'll notice more options from when you go into restaurants and cafes, you see more options for low-carbon, plant-based vegan choices on the menu. You may proactively choose to fly less or to choose a particular car or to not drive at all and to actually make, you know, to take the benefit of options around sort of, you know, I'm sure incentives for public transport. Now, obviously, that's the luxury that we have living in countries like the UK. We have all of these things. I think, you know, if you're an individual that is in one of these industries that's in transition, then you probably feel it a little bit more acutely and thinking through kind of where, you know, where those opportunities are next and thinking through kind of, you know, how you might be able to address kind of like some of the sort of the future prosperity for you and your family is probably a little bit more acute. And again, you know, in the context of, you know, different parts of the world are sort of being able to experience the shift to your low-carbon economy in more ways than others. But as we see this increasing interest in investing in low-carbon futures in kind of nature restoration, I think we'll start to create a lot more visibility about, you know, all the good things that we'll see as we transition. So some of the economies that have made that transition successfully and where we've seen people do that are in Scandinavia, for example. You've been involved in politics for 20 or so years. How do you see the kind of political dynamic working out in terms of the kind of measures needed to get public and popular effort behind this kind of climate change crisis? Good question. When I became a minister of the environment in 2001, in Norway I was struggling with the same thing that we're struggling with today. I think the perspective is that we look at cost of action. But the challenge is, as I also mentioned previously, is that the cost of inaction far exceeds the cost of action. The challenge is that we are not on blocking, unlocking the necessary investments because of a polarized world. We're not able to agree on the measures that put the price on emissions. And the only way to also secure future technology is that emissions will also pay a price. And these are important moving forward. And things can happen very fast. 10 years ago, the price of solar was 10 times the price today. Who would imagine one-tenth of the price of solar energy in 10 years? And in many places in the world now, solar is competitive. These are the technologies that we need, also in the future, to make sure that we are on a sustainable track when it comes to climate change. And we only have a very small window. And if we don't use this window in the coming 10 years, we will be faced with a situation where we're moving around the deck chairs on Titanic. That's the reality. But people feel, I mean, Emily talked about the costs, the social costs of the transition. In France, you have people who feel that the costs are being borne by them as diesel owners and that they're having to pay. And if you like this kind of popular backlash against what they see as a kind of green imposition, do you think that's something that governments are gonna be able to deal with? Or there are measures that we can take as policy professionals, as policy makers, to mitigate against those kind of changes? There's no alternative to dealing with it. And I think moving from kind of red taxes to green taxes also has to come with the perspective of addressing inequalities. And as I said, when we look at the risks for 2020, 75% of those that are pointing at risk point at domestic polarization as one of the major risks. And this is also including inequalities. And the reality is that leaders also have to look at the domestic tools that you have available. And of course, taxes are one of them. But taxes also have to come in a way that you say, if we then put the price on some of the actions that you don't want to incentivize, you also have to look at the situation for those that are paying those taxes. You have to then maybe then reduce some others. And you also have to look at it in a way that those that are already under pressure feeling that their salaries have not been increasing and the qualities have been growing and the genetic coefficient have been moving in the wrong direction, has also to have a package where they feel that they will benefit from it, not only benefit from the long-term positive effects on their children, grandchildren, and themself when it comes to climate change, but also that they will come out in an okay way when it comes to this year's salary and what you're left with. Star the front and we'll work our way backwards. We'll all drink at the times. And there's a question about China, obviously, on both when you talk about geopolitical tensions and on climate change issues. And I'm just wondering whether you guys... I mean, obviously, because China's a huge carbon emitter and there are tensions in the multilateral system, particularly with China. So I wondered if you believe that China was engaging sufficiently on both measures because without China's sign-up to this, it's going to fail. Great question. Top of the middle. Ladies and gentlemen there. Keep your hand up. Ladies and gentlemen there. Thank you so much. Viviane Oswald from the Brazilian Paper of Global. We are discussing here climate emergency and we have been watching fires in Brazil and in Australia and I would like to know how to deal with the governments and businesses from those two countries where we see some resistance in dealing with climate change at this very moment. Great point. And just, gentlemen, the purple shirt. There we are. Thanks, Adrian. Jatendra Joshi with AFP. I just wanted to come back on the reports section on diseases and pandemics we're seeing right now. Obviously, the report was compiled prior to the current outbreak of what is described as a SARS-like virus in China which in recent days has now been confirmed as spreading into beyond China and possibly further afield. From the report, from your findings, how ready is the world for another pandemic on that sort of scale? Great questions. Maybe I can start on China with you, Berger. And China obviously has a massive role to play in any of the measures that we're talking about in addressing these crises. No, it's true that China, together with the U.S., are the two largest economies. More than 40 percent of the global GDP. China is also a major emitter of CO2. They have agreed to the Paris Protocol. China has targets. It's crucial that China is a part of this and that energy efficiency is continued. And also China has played a major role, for example, on solar and wind. The manufacturing of solar and wind has been so effective that the prices have fallen and this also shows that China has been a responsible player here and sticking to their multilateral agreements. So we cannot succeed in the field of climate without having also China on board. On the pandemics and epidemics, I think it's a very important question raised. I don't think the world is ready for another pandemic or epidemic and we need to invest much more in this field. We have to develop potential vaccines for meeting pandemics and also epidemics and this is one of the blind spots I feel. When it comes to the coming years. Murat, maybe just turning to you a little bit more on the pandemic thing before moving to Peter and John and Emily on the governments. Thanks. We have just the lead author of the report here, Emilia Franco, so acknowledging you as well. But I think it goes back to the unsettled world because if you talk to professionals that are dealing with pandemics and epidemics in the global system, they are worried because a lot of it, of course, is also dependent on self-reporting and right now we have this drift from cooperation to competition. So this also affects the risk landscape when it comes to the future pandemic and epidemic in addition to what Borgia mentioned about the capacity to react. John, Peter, you have global businesses. You doubtless have customers in Brazil and Australia. How do you get through to governments that the issues that you're ensuring are issues that they need to pay attention to? Is it just risk premiums going up or are there other mechanisms to make them aware of the measures needed to be taken? I think Australia is an important example now and we should not confuse individual events as bad as they are with friends. I think that's one of the issues here. When we look at Australia, I think the weather patterns in Australia clearly show signs of climate change. The forest fires that we see may or may not kind of be heightened by that. At the same time, Australia basically is still investing in thermal coal and that just leaves you a bit confused. I mean, I'm probably in the same camp as many people here in the room. As a company, we have decided to basically start no longer supporting some of these technologies in the industries. I think Brazil is quite a different example. I think Brazil, and from a risk perspective, I think that's the issue that we see is repeating a mistake that the Europeans have done maybe 100, 200 years ago. Many times in our history we have deforested and every time it has ended in a tragedy. And I think in Brazil, really the question is how can we not make the same mistake again as a global society that we have made many times before? How can we stop before it's too late? Because that's one of the things about ecosystems, is those are not discrete systems. They'll tip over. And that's what we're warning of. The whole biodiversity discussion goes in that direction. Nobody knows when those systems tip over. There is no economic value currently kind of registered in the value of a pollination. It just happens. Nature just does it for us. 75% of our crops depend on pollination. Now think about insects disappearing in a region. That's a catastrophic outcome. And I think that's where we want to raise awareness that there is true costs if these systems tip. The only point I would add is that I think coming back to some of the comments I made earlier, I think businesses will respond to pressures from their stakeholders. And so that could be from regulatory signals of the policy changes that raise the cost of behaving in a certain way. I think they could respond to that. They could also respond to pressures from investors or customers or employees that put pressure on the business to change and act in a different way. So I think that there are things that can be done by all stakeholder communities to kind of raise and maybe borrowing Burgers language to raise the cost of inaction. So it can be compared to the cost of action in this regard. And then I think increasingly we'll see that. Specifically with Brazil and Australia, much of that I would call those out as the most prominent examples of this. But I do think more generally, the pressure on businesses is going to grow and I think you'll see action that's more constructive stemming from those stakeholder pressures. Emily, you talked about the work we've done with CEOs but also some governments. I mean, how do you get on board governments who are aggressively taking a line against the climate change science? I think what we've found that's been the most effective is to work with leaders. And in some countries it's been helpful to work with states and regional leaders and city leaders that actually can implement changes much more effectively. And I think we've seen that leadership really kind of continuing the trend in an upwards direction to respond to citizens. And I think the visibility of some of these extreme impacts of climate change are heightening citizen awareness and citizens are voters, their employees, their consumers. And I think this will only continue to kind of really push businesses and government leaders to understand the trajectory that we need to go in. Okay, we've got about five minutes. Can I just get a quick cast around? Should we start right at the back and go work our way forwards? So, gentlemen there. Thank you, Jonah, Al Jazeera. The World Economic Forum is arguably the world's biggest business lobby, lobby-initiated businesses to make changes in line with climate change. The elephant in the room presumably will be the world's biggest climate denier, Donald Trump, who at a stroke if he wanted to could influence many of the changes you advocate. So my question is how destructive overall is the U.S. president's climate skepticism to the overall effort and will he be lobbying him to change? Okay, well, just to correct you, we're not a lobbying organization. We're a membership organization. Sadly, we don't lobby anyone for anything, but we do try and develop evidence-based approaches to scientifically demonstrable situations. We've got the... Thank you. Paul Walsh, Insurance here in Magazine. I have a question specifically for Peter. In light of all the findings that we've discussed this morning, what would be your specific advice for insurers and what action should they take in light of all these findings? Great, and the lady just ahead. Hi, I'm Laurie Gehring from the Thompson Reuters Foundation. I was interested in this issue of these signals to business because we've seen clearly that the Paris Agreement hasn't provided the necessary signals, and we've been talking about how government hasn't provided those. And John has talked a little bit about what he sees as some of the signals coming, but I'm curious what you all think are the really powerful signals that are going to drive business to really begin to change this thing where our missions are still rising. I mean, is that people in the streets? Is that extinction rebellion and these youth movements led by Greta Thunberg? Is that the financial cost of losses in supply chains and doing business and in pressure? Where do each of you see the real pressure coming to make the changes at the scale and the speed needed? I've just got a couple questions. Gentleman there, gentleman right at the front. And I think we'll have to gallop through the answers. Hi, my name is Delosiamo from China Global Television Network. Going back to geopolitical risks, I just want your observations on the recent tensions in the Middle East, especially when in one-fifth the global oil supply passes through the Strait of Formals. What do you think those risks playing out in 2020 would look like? Thank you. Great. And finally, gentleman at the front. Bode or Shosami? Arise news. Two questions very quickly. If you look at the global risks landscape, the 2020 picture, it looks from, just looking at it like a broad brush in the sense that would this apply equally in various regions and various economies? For example, would you say fiscal crisis and employment, critical infrastructure and failure is less impactful or less likely than data for in somewhere else? So I don't understand how that plays in different geographies. And then of course in economies like South Africa and indeed Africa where they've had to contend with unemployment and some of these other more pressing poverty type issues, how are you able to gain the attention of the leaders to take actions that are more climate friendly? Okay, I might turn to Emily on that one. John and Peter, maybe we can get your views on the some of the industry issues raised. Perhaps Mirek turns to you on the geopolitical issue and Borgher, we just talked about the role China has to play in all of this. First question was really about the US, which is the kind of the preeminent, still the preeminent economy and that must have a huge role to play in any set of solutions that are being proposed. No, you're right that China and the US is more than 40% of the global economy. So the steps that these two nations are taking are crucial for all of us and as mentioned President Trump will be in Davos next week and I think it's crucial that also leaders from all over the world use this impartial platform for dialogue and I'm pretty sure that questions related to trade the importance of de-escalation of the conflicts in the Middle East and also climate change will come up in the dialogue and as the international organization for public private cooperation what is very interesting to see is that on many of these issues business know have been really pushing for proactive policies on climate change on biodiversity but also underlining the importance of trade trade has been the engine of growth and when we're seeing that trade is no slowing it will also have impact but also that companies more and more say that the business of business is not only business the business of companies is also to take more responsibility and this is also very much aligned with the basis of the World Economic Forum when Professor Klaus Schwab initiated the forum back in 1972 that companies that really want to be in it for a long run has to also take responsibility towards its employees but also society and also the planet and when you're moving from capitalism to talentism the companies that also attract the best talent are companies that take a broader responsibility that's where you would like to work in companies that really really care not only about next quarter but the next decade and this needs to be the decade of implementation you have to start to walk the talk on all the issues that have been mentioned here today or we will end up with bigger problems in the decade. John Peter just want to address the specific insurance industry points that were raised. Okay I'm just going to comment quickly on the signals question that around climate I would just say watch the investor dynamic because with 40 trillion dollars of investors that are now signed up to climate action 100 I think you're going to business leaders are responsive to their shareholders or at least own parts of these companies that are meaningful and I think that will be a source of significant pressure in addition to obviously the signals that they'll get from employees and customers and so forth but I think the investor pressure will grow. Peter? Well as an insurance company we use a lot of historical data for pricing so for the first piece as a risk office there is that I can no longer trust my history I mean if weather patents fundamentally change how do I look at kind of the probability and severity of the events that's a big challenge for our industry and the second is just good practice to run a sustainable business. A sustainable business is basically a very long term perspective and an insurance company that wants to be sustainable will take a view on where the transition goes and you don't want to be stuck in things and technologies industries that are obsolete and you want to find the winners of the new economy but that's just good business practice if you run a sustainable business with a long term perspective. Thanks Mirek do you just want to address that geopolitical question and specifically an area of your expertise in the Middle East? Yeah it so happens I work on the Middle East so obviously there are a long standing fault lines in the region that of course the World Economic Forum has always worked on dialogue around those Israel, Palestine Syria, Iraq Libya what is even more concerning of course is that we now exist in this unsettled global landscape so our analysis what we are writing about is that in this landscape then what used to have the international consensus moving toward really coming together and solving these issues but in this unsettled landscape we're seeing some conduct and behavior that is actually exacerbating some of these risks so and the final thing is just not to be underestimated the internal governance risks that may be hidden now because of all the attention being paid to the geostrategic issues but they're at the root of a lot of those conflicts and you may remember the Arab human development report from early 2000s where a lot of outstanding Arab scholars came together and really put together a great study of what it takes to take the region to the future and those things a lot of them are still there and it's a big risk for a lot of the economies in the Middle East and North African and again we work with our business community and government leaders to have a data-based approach to those Great and Emily we've heard about signals I mean just to end this panel the positive signals that we can look to that might give us reason to end this on an optimistic rather than pessimistic note. Yeah sure I think the signal that the Paris Agreement sent was extremely well received by leaders within the business community that you can genuinely see the trend of emissions reduction and their ability to want to work across value chains to continue that trend I think the other thing that we're seeing is that new social entrepreneurs tech entrepreneurs that are really looking at new innovations and are springing up across the world are also really growing in terms of both their visibility and their ability to access some of the businesses that we work with and the platforms that we work with so I think what we're seeing is this potential change we've had quite a long period of a few decades now of a lot of these new technologies being developed even a lot of new approaches to collaboration across different stakeholder groups being developed as well so that when the cities and companies or citizens and cities kind of start coming together then you can see those trends kind of really rising so in the context of this next decade of delivery I think all of these things being put into practice will give us a chance to really get on and address it Thanks Emily, I mean they say that risks happen very slowly and then develop very fast but the same is sometimes true of attitudinal changes and I think if you look at the survey results from some of the young people around the world that we've questioned you can see that perhaps there might be reasons for optimism in terms of the sacrifices people are willing to take the behavioral changes they might be willing to adopt and the seriousness of which they view the kind of things we've been talking about here this morning our kind of motto remains you know pessimism of the intellect optimism of the will if you'd like to take anything deeper with the folks here there's time after this panel and just someone who can help you Emilio can you just stand up and say hello Emilio Franco who's the reports author who's done all the hard work that you'll see in this report with his team and he can take you right underneath the numbers and some of the other stuff inside it thank you all very much indeed for being here and look forward to seeing some of you next week in Switzerland thank you