 And we're talking today about how do we stop at two degrees. That'll of course be the climate, the mission being to prevent the global climate from warming more than two degrees. I have an extremely distinguished panel with me here today. We have Governor Jay Inslee of the State of Washington in the United States. We have Cristiana Figueiras, the convener of Mission 2020, whose mission it is to obtain peak emissions of carbon by 2020 and who is responsible for convening the United Nations Agreement in Paris around climate mitigation and prevention. And Ficus Tisbestma, who is CEO of Royal DSM. Good afternoon everybody. I'm going to ask you Cristiana. With the United States potentially extracting itself from the Paris Climate Accord, does the world have any hope to keep a mission warming to two degrees? Well, first of all, slight correction, important correction. Important, slight but important. The target of the Paris Agreement is not to keep us to two degrees, it's to keep us well below two degrees. Just so that we can keep, you know, that's an exceedingly important. And in fact, to strive toward 1.5 degrees. Correct. So just to, you know, know what, and the reason for that, actually it's a very important reason, right? Because if we go into a world that warms more than two degrees, the insurance industry has warned us that that is a world that is systemically uninsurable because of the destruction that would be cast upon us. So that's why we have to stay well below two degrees. We do not want to endanger the global economy. So what does the US government do? Well, on our current path, we are likely to meet those targets. No, we're not because the Paris Agreement never aspired to meet it with the first harvest of efforts, okay? So if you think of it, you know, we have a harvest of efforts, just like you have a harvest of grapes for the vintage of that year. The vintage that we have of 2015 was never meant to keep us under two degrees. It was meant to be the first effort. And within five years, which starts actually now at the end of this year, all countries need to come together again to figure out what have they done? What has the private sector been able to contribute? What policies contribute? Where has technology moved? Where has finance shifted? And therefore, because of increased confidence, where can we go next? So the Paris Agreement will keep us well below two degrees if we keep to that pace of increasing ambition every five years. Two-year question about the United States. Yes. Three things that I wanted to say. Number one, it is not at all clear whether the United States will actually withdraw because irony has it that the United States, from a legal perspective, politically they can of course do whatever they wish. But from a legal perspective, the first day that they would be able to withdraw is the 6th of November of 2020, which is three days after the next US election. So we don't know what they're going to do on the 6th of November of 2020. Secondly, the question is the current political position of the White House, does that impact what the United States said that they would do under the Paris Agreement too early to tell? Because the fact is we don't know what the numbers are going to add up. What is fantastic is the reaction that we have had, and we'll hear more details I'm sure from the governor, that we have had from nine states, 300 cities, 1,000 corporations in the United States call them the real economy versus the politics, the real economy that is actually moving with the carbonization because they know that it's good for them. And the third point that I want to make is does the intended withdrawal or the political withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement affect the world's efforts? And to that I have to say frankly, no. Because I have not seen one country of all of the other 194 countries who has now said, okay, because the United States is not doing its bit, then we're going to go out. In part because of the response of the real economy of the United States, but also in part because they understand that it's good for them. China and India have already surpassed what they said that they were going to do under the Paris targets. Not because they want to save the planet, because it's good for their economy. Good economics, and to that end, that's what you're finding in Washington state. That the state is, that actors in the state cities and others are prepared to make changes based on economics rather than politics. Very much so because what we have learned is that acting to develop a clean energy economy actually enhances your economic productivity. And that makes sense because at least in my state, which is a technologically adept innovative state, every time there is an economic transformation, we have grown our economy. When we went from propeller planes to jets, we grew our economy. When we went from an analog system to a digital system and software, we grew our economy. And now we're going to decarbonize our economy. And that's when my state does well, because we developed these new technologies. So in my state, CNBC just listed my state as the best place to do business in the United States. And one of the reasons is because we are developing our clean energy economy like crazy. We have 90,000 jobs in my state and growing twice as fast in the clean energy economy. Jobs in the clean energy economy are growing twice as fast as the rest of our economy. And it's because we have made investments in companies that are on the cutting edge. We have the Western Hemisphere's largest manufacturer of carbon fiber that goes into electric cars. We have the largest vanadium flow battery in the world that allows to integrate renewable energy to the grid. We're making great solar panels in Billingham, Washington. So you can't turn over a rock in my state without finding a job creating industry that is created that's going to help solve this problem. So it's a positive thing for your economy. And it's not an accident that the best economic locations of growth in the United States are those who are part of this alliance that Cristiana talked about. So the day after President Trump made his statement about Paris, within a day we'd stood up an organization called the United States Climate Alliance. So we have an alliance of 14 states in one territory. We are committed to the parents' agreements. We are all acting in our own way to do that. And we would be the third largest economy of the world if our 14 states were one nation. Now I am not suggesting that those states become a separate nation. But we are acting, and it's not slowing us down. So actually the message of Davos, I think, is that President Trump has been a one-man parade with no one behind him. Because no one has followed him out of the Paris Agreement. Actually, we've had three Republican governors join us rather than his retrograde effort to deny science. So the momentum is very much to continue this effort that came out of the Paris Agreement and well that it is. So we're very optimistic about what we're doing in our state. And the same is true of many in the corporate world. Is that not science to see best man? Right, well let's turn to the people who cause the emission, the private sector to a large degree, or the consumers of our products. And I hope we don't need to discuss the reasons why we need to address climate change. I hope it's so obvious, the science and the issues we see already today, the people suffered today. So if we don't go into the topic of the climate skeptical people, why do we need to address? We'll go immediately to how do we solve it? Then we say we need to do three things as a private sector. We need to reduce our own emissions. We need to enable the whole supply chain to do better. And we need to advocate. Reduce our own emission set targets, science-based. We have a carbon budget. We need to be at the peak, ultimately, in 2020, 2050 neutral. That means you need to have absolute reduction targets as the private sector. Secondly, enable, try to develop new innovations, make cars more lightweight. So let's see you too, boosting the output of solar panels. Or let's not forget the agricultural sector, developing new feed ingredients we just did, reducing the emissions of cows. We call them clean cows. So those kind of things enable is also a possibility. And of course, then advocate. Advocate, be strong. We have now 81 companies, big multinational companies joining us in the way of climate leaders who advocate clearly putting a price on carbon to stimulate all to take really tough measures. And having a financial economic incentive to do that, including, by the way, the investors who invest in their companies. And I think it is important to reduce our own emissions and enable and to put effort in innovation. And I think this just makes good business sense to future proof your company. 10 years ago, I was questioned, is it making profit or doing well for the world? Today, 10 years later, we can show those two things can go hand in hand, at least in our company. I'm sure if you sit here in 10 years from now, if as a company you did not address those things, you don't make profit anymore. And your investors will find that out. So it makes sense and the world is changing. So we've got a panel here of climate optimists from the global level, from the multinational level and the local level. We've actually reached out to the great global public through our social media channels. And I've got some questions here that I'll put to our panelists. If anybody in the audience would like to ask a question, let me know and I will come to you in a minute. This is a question for you, Christiana. And it comes from Kendall Tyson in Chicago in the United States. What solutions are you working towards to solve the issue of air pollution and what innovative projects have you seen that provide people with clean and safe energy? Well, it's interesting because air pollution actually is one part of the problem. It's not everything. If you look at fossil fuels which have caused global warming and climate change, it is the same burning of those fossil fuels that cause air pollution. But it's two different types of pollution. One is the local pollution, the local particulates that come out of the burning of fossil fuel from our cars, from our factories, et cetera, which is causing harm to the respiratory system of humans, which is why we need to move beyond that. And the same burning of the same fossil fuels is what's causing global pollution, which is different particulates, different gases, which is what's causing climate change. But the source is the same. So whether you're interested in your own personal health, in your public health, if you're a political leader, or if you're in the medical system, or whether you're interested in the planetary health, it's the same problem. It is putting the fossil fuel industry, thank them truly because much of what we're enjoying today is thanks to the fossil fuel industry. So thank them for what they did in the past century, but then just like any other little old lady, put them to retirement. It is time to retire the fossil fuel industry as a whole and move toward the cleaner fuels of this century. So everything under the Paris Agreement, actually, and everything that is being done by the local governments, by state governments, by corporates is actually moving us slowly, but surely, not fast enough, away from fossil fuels, which has been the bedrock of our society, into cleaner fuels that will allow us to continue our economic development, very important, but without the toxic effects from fossil fuels. Fika, what would you say are the... When you're making decisions on behalf of your corporation, what are the most important incentives that factor in your mind when you're thinking about making climate decisions that are climate-related? It's what I said, by the way. I can build on what Christiana was saying about putting them into retirements and she called even the fossil industry the black croc or something like that. What did you say? Like a little old lady. Like a little old lady. Thank her and put her in retirement. Right. And why should we or could we put them into retirement? Because there are better alternatives today. Cheaper. It is a little bit the analogy with the Stone Age. I mean, why did we move out of the Stone Age? Not because we were short of stones, but there were better alternatives. And it's not that we are short of coal, to be honest, in the world, but there are better alternatives. Or gas or oil. Or gas or oil. There are better alternatives. And that is exactly what we take into consideration with our decisions. There are better alternatives to the future. There will come a price on carbon. China just started with it. Europe just withdrawing the allowances. The Americas, including Washington, are linking their systems. If you as a company do not see the writing on the wall, do not see that you need to address this. Just from an economic perspective, you have a responsibility, I believe also. But if you say it goes beyond my responsibility as a global citizen, I just take economic decisions. Imagine you do that. I go further. But imagine that it makes good business sense to address your business in such a way you become climate proof. You reduce your own emissions because you will pay for it. You develop products which help this world to make a step forward because you will make money of that. The new climate economy report showed clearly that we can show economic growth. We don't have to go back to old history. We can show economic growth by addressing climate change. So for me, it just makes good business sense. We transformed our company. By the way, 115 years ago, we started as a coal mining company. Hardly dare to say it. But that's our history. 115 years ago. Now, already 60, 50 years ago, we changed into a chemical company. Now, 15 years ago, we changed into a life science and material science company, which we are today. So you need to adjust in order to survive. I'm a biologist. Darwin taught us. Those who will survive will those who adapt. And that's true on the local level as well. I've got a question here from Karthik in Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. Karthik asks, there's a surge in the production and consumption of electric cars, but electric cars take electricity and electricity burns fossil fuels. Isn't that going to be more harmful than if we just stuck with the good old petrol vehicles? Appreciate the question. The answer is no. Even with the same mix of generating capacity in your grid, electric cars can be at least marginally better as far as a CO2 net life cycle. Not much, but a little bit. But as the question indicates, the real success of electric cars are when we can clean up our grid and when we can have sources of electricity that are not CO2 sources. Now, that is well within our possibility. Today in my state, over three-quarters of our grid comes from non-CO2 emitting sources, over three-quarters. So we have a capacity to do that. Now, we're blessed with hydroelectric in my part of the world. So that's one of the reasons. But what we are finding is that we can rapidly move away from fossil fuels even for that remaining percentage. And our utilities are finding ways to do that as well. So we are closing our only remaining coal-fired plant in the state of Washington. We are moving off of coal-based electricity that otherwise would go into cars that comes from other states. And here in Davos, it's interesting in the last 24 hours I've talked to three companies that are very interested in starting some solar power plants and building electric ferries in Washington state. So it's interesting from Davos we're finding people who see a business case for cleaning up my grid even for the small part that still is based on fossil fuels. So the rapidity of this is quite amazing. We've had a 90% reduction in the cost of photovoltaic solar in the last eight to nine years. We have 90,000 people in my state now working in these clean energy sources to make the grid clean so the electricity is virtually clean when we do put it into our electric car. So there's every reason to be optimistic about this. And as I've said, my state is not the only state that is achieving success in this regard. By the way, we even have three Republican governors in our coalition who are trying to clean up their grids as well. And the reason I point this out is electric cars are a future because we have public policy leaders to understand we're going to clean up our grid so those electric cars can be very clean. And the battery technology, the development of battery technology is so rapid you just knock your socks off. The chemistry improvements that are being are just amazing. So we ought to be optimistic about electric cars. In fact, I just have an electric car that was going to be delivered tomorrow. I'm buying it used because I'm very sort of Scottish on this. But they delivered the wrong car. So we'll be back next week with an electric car. So what I'm hearing is there are a ton of, you know, there are existing economic incentives to make this shift by your own admission earlier. I think you're also hearing very interesting from the governor is that those jurisdictions, in this case the state, that put in place these policies actually attract investment. It's not that, you know, at this point, you don't no longer have to go and look for it. Those companies that are in this new economy will very quickly flock toward those jurisdictions that have the policies that are providing these incentives. And those jurisdictions will be providing more employment, better air, better health, better energy security. So, you know, it's not just that the renewable energy is a better investment against fossil fuel. It's actually that there is economic, for the entire economy, there is benefit for moving into the cleaner technologies. And if I may add something, what we are finding is that when you have policies that inspire people getting access to electric cars and solar panels and more insulation, it attracts the manufacturers and the producer because they want to be close to their customer and they want to have a market brand that is associated with a sustainable approach as you do. And that's a market benefit. So good behavior attracts good investment. That's what we learn in the state of Washington. And in addition, I tell you, the investors slowly, slowly, but they are getting it. More and more pension funds, more and more investors, more and more insurance companies want also to future-proof their investment. And they also scared if they have invested in the wrong things that over time they will be hurt. So they see also the writing on the wall and they want to be invested in the right things. And therefore, those kinds of initiatives attract new investors. And that's good. You said earlier that at current rates, we are not on track to meet the Paris climate accords objective of well less than two degrees. What do we have to do now, next year, and 2020 to meet your mission of peak admissions? Well, now, there is a challenge. There is a challenge because the fact is that the science of climate change has advanced even since 2015. And we were not aware in 2015 or 2014 when we were moving toward the Paris Agreement of how precipitous the change or the moment in time is upon us when we will actually decide as a society, can we bring climate change into control or not? And the fact is that that has now been pinpointed to be the year 2020. So within two years, or three if you count the end of 2020, we have to have been at the point as a global society that we have to reverse the trend that is currently still going up despite all of our optimism, everything that we're saying, we are not at the critical mass of reversing the global trend. We're in the transition period but we're not reversing the trend. So we have to within maximum three years reverse that trend and not just flatten out our emissions but actually begin a pretty rapid descent so that by 2050 we will be at a net zero economy. A big challenge. So, how? How? Well, first of all, we are on track to have 23% of energy on the global grid be renewable by 2020. Close but no cigar. We needed to be actually 30%. We are mobilizing capital. We are currently coming up to $400 billion being invested every year globally into clean technologies. Okay, but we need to move it to $1 trillion. We are, we have had on transportation, we have had over the past three to four months the announcements of seven major companies in China, in Europe and in the United States that they're moving toward the post internal combustion engine, toward electricity, electric vehicles and each of them have given their dates very good but we would have to be seriously on track where every major city of the world currently we have only a few but every major city of the world has to have had the policy already in place by 2020 that they're going to actually start either living attacks or prohibiting the use of polluting cars. To give you just a few examples of the many different areas in which we need much more speed. On all of them we have traction. On all of them we're moving in the right direction. It's the speed and scale that is a problem. So there's a gap of 7% between where we need to be on energy, on electricity we need another $600 billion in investment in clean... Did you bring your chat book? I'm ticking off the boxes here. So the question is, you can do what you can in Washington State. Give us a couple of examples of what you are doing to help close these gaps. So as we speak we are attempting to pass America's first carbon tax which will create a price signal to spur investment and will also importantly create about a $3 billion investment fund in my state over a biennium so that we can help consumers get access to the electric cars so we can help businesses get access to new efficiencies to reduce CO2 emissions so that we can help people in insulating their homes so we don't waste energy and make additional investments in our incredible research institutes so we can train people in the new businesses and clean energy. So we're excited about that. I'm two weeks into my legislative session and we hope we can achieve it. We are also looking at avenues to have a low carbon fuel standard as a potential alternative to carbon tax or an additional one which will essentially require the industry to give us cleaner fuels and it's been very effective in California and thank you very much under Kate Brown's tremendous leadership we have two great Governor Browns in Oregon and California. We are looking at essentially a clean fuels mandate for the grid so that any future generating capacity would need to be renewable we're also looking for additional incentives for electric car usage so we have multiple avenues all of these make sense we're starting with a carbon charge because we believe it's the most flexible in a regulatory approach would have a price signal and then they would have the flexibility of how to make the investments to actually improve CO2 so we hope that we are successful if anyone knows the legislator in Washington State you feel free to share your viewpoints with them you have a First Amendment right in America to do so and I will defend you if you would like to do so. Very good. Here you see how the private and the public sector can work hand in hand together I mean as a private sector rightly so we do not make legislation that is up to the public sector but as a private sector we are a very simple sector we react quite instinctively on financial incentives even in your sleep that counts for all my colleagues and I dream about other things but nevertheless putting a price on carbon which is now happening in the Americas Chile, Peru, Mexico, Canada and of the country in between Washington and California Europe, China they all put a price on carbon right now and the investors and the private sector is reacting very simple if there is a financial incentive to reduce my own emissions if there is a financial incentive to do more innovations in this field and they will do that investors will come and companies will come so it is happening and it will happen and therefore the most important is I think to put a price on carbon and if it's happening globally there is also no carbon leakage of transformation of businesses move from one area to another area because you will be biting always whatever happens and in the sectors I would say look to energy look to traffic providers so to say but I mentioned already let's not forget 18% of our total emissions our agriculture and that maybe has to do with our meat consumption but also how we treat our cows and like I said I don't know how the cows look to regulations about themselves and how they look their own feed but there are solutions clean cows this is Davos so we keep things on time here the number of climate skeptics on this panel is clearly none we know however that there is at least one in the congress hall at the moment but the message from this panel is it might not matter thank you for being with us until now goodbye thank you you might not matter