 So I have the pleasure to then introduce somebody who might be familiar to you then, Hossam Asgari. Come on up, Hossam. Hossam just got his MSc from the Environmental Change Institute, and he's now an intern at SEI Oxford. And we were delighted to discover that he's an artist who spoke in word. And so he's going to share a few thoughts to sort of get your minds sort of thinking creatively as we engage in this last session to see where we go from here. So, and the other thing to note is that, you know, Hossam is an intern right now, but after internship, and if you know of any opportunities in environmental education, please come talk to Hossam. Alright, take care of Hossam. So this does not have a title yet, before we get back tomorrow. In the midst of a tunnel down under a fossil pit, and sorry I kept digging under the floor, going back or forward I couldn't tell which fit. I looked down the tunnel as far as it was lit, got some insight but still wasn't sure. Supplied site policy demanded to be wise, reduce production or produce consumption, as I wondered whether it should have been precise, help others or job in the eyes. Some formulated the gist of a just transition. Headlines ran on emissions and accountability. Graphs and figures became typical. I heard it called a transformative opportunity, not without loss and damage responsibility. This got me confused and then I turned lyrical. Some said the world will end in fire, some say we'll get to net zero. What will become of the fossil empire as the youth become green and the old retire? Will CCS bring jobs and become the hero? Many tunnels emerged in my fossil pit, some dug by mistake, some on purpose. Will infrastructure get reduced or get stranded? How much budget before some rich demanded? One thing I knew, the tunnel has converted. Thank you. My name is Marion Davis. Thank you very much all for staying for this final session. We know that there are some people who escaped on their way to airports and trains and things like that. For this final session, what we are looking to do really is just to take stock of all we've learned and all we've reflected on here. This has been a pretty extraordinary conference. This came up as an idea more than two years ago when the initiative on fossil fuels and climate change was first being planned at SCI. I have no idea whether you two could even imagine what this would actually be or who would be here. I don't think we expected it to be quite this amazingly awesome. So thank you all because what made it awesome is the fact that you were all here because we learned so much from each other and from all these different perspectives. So to try to get some of those ideas about what we learned and some of the ways forward from here, we have assembled a panel of really smart people. To start, Don Fernando Tudela, who is, give me a second, why am I suddenly missing this, who is from the Center on Climate Change and Sustainability in the Southeast in Mexico, and then my colleague Claudia Strambo, who is a researcher at SCI in Stockholm and she's been doing some work in Colombia on coal, and then Navros Duvall, who is from the Center for Policy Research and I just pronounced your name in Spanish, sorry. It's hard to switch languages. And then Frank Convery from the Environmental Defense Fund and finally Sephora Berman from York University and the Alberta government, who a lot of you just heard from in the last session. So this is going to be very free form. We're going to start very quickly by getting some short reflections from them and then it's going to be open for all of you. In addition to you obviously being welcome to raise your hands, we would also invite you to use the hashtag for those of you who tweet, feel free to use ffcc16 to add additional comments if you don't get a chance to say something right now. But let's begin with Don Fernando. I'm very grateful to SCI for the kind of invitation to participate in this conference which has been to be timely, interesting and enjoyable. It may change now with my intervention. So where we stand now? We have a number of options I would just pick two families of options I would call them drugs versus minamata. The fighting the drugs views and the drugs as a health problem, public health problem, has been traditionally focused merely on the supply side. That's it. The cause of the drug problem is drug dealers. They eliminate them and that's it. You get rid of the problem. You may say what has to do with the drug problem with climate change? Climate use of fossil fuels is, as we know, addictive. Some countries are more addict than others and some fuels are more prone to addiction than others. But we always have said from the perspective of countries south of the border, the US border that focusing on the supply side is hopelessly ineffective and inequitable. Unless there is a strong policy for managing demand, we won't have any solution there. They say, well, the drug dealers are poisoning people. We hear that. From our perspective, they are also killing our people. And they are putting in jeopardy a state and sending the rule of law down the gutters. Okay, to fight that, we have to find a combination of supply side and demand side. And perhaps even in this case, demand is piling there. The other poll may not matter. Well, back after three years of trying voluntary action, back in 2010, countries undertook a multilateral negotiation to fight the mercury compounds and problems. And we reached an agreement called Inamata Convention after the disaster that took place in Japan back in the 50s and 60s that focuses straight into the supply side. During these three years of negotiations, no one ever thought of trying to put a price on mercury. We went straight through to the phase out of mercury and mercury compounds. Some may say, well, it's unrelated to climate change. What's the relevance? I think again, because the main source of mercury compound emissions is coal-fired power plants. That's the main cause. We have co-benefits and we also have co-damages. And this is a co-damage. So, okay, my guess is that in both cases we are facing difficult transitions. The transition for combating drugs tends to be long, complex, conceptually complex. Whereas perhaps the transition that is based on the Inamata Convention which has not yet entered into force, by the way, will be perhaps much faster but faces lots of practical, not conceptual, practical problems. It is my take, I don't know whether you share it with me, that we have to dissociate fossil fuels. Oil and gas may lean towards drug perspective while coal lends itself to be handled as a Inamata problem. So, where do we stand there? I think we have to put that in the context of the Paris Agreement. Namely, the need to stay below the two degrees, let alone 1.5, in my view, I may sound cynical, but the 1.5 phrase in the Paris Agreement was just a concession for appeasing seeds, the small island developing states. I think that the two degrees is ambitious enough and difficult enough to focus our attention on it. So, there are solutions that have to do with markets and non-markets approaches, but I'm going to only focus on market approaches, combining supply and pricing in a way which is much more complex than Economics 101 would make you think. And my guess is that we should be focusing on the interactions between those. I know that we underestimated the supply-side solutions. We neglected them, but instead of now focusing only on supply-side, I think that we should focus straight into the complex interactions between those three aspects which have a considerable leeway. I know I'm running out of time. So, in the context of Paris Agreement, we should be trying to make progress in achieving common accounting. I'm not naive. I know that common accounting is not within reach anytime soon, but we have to deal with that in order to allow for the underlying assumption of the Paris Agreement, which is basically naming and shaming as a driving force for the climate regime. It has to do with emissions. I think it's a good opportunity for trying, for instance, to take into account the carbon embedded in imports and exports. We are already doing that. We are already doing that in, for instance, the Global Carbon Project does that, so that we will take into account emissions that take place outside our national jurisdiction. Thank you, Don Fernando. I'm going to have to... I will just run. Let's be flexible enough. Let's consider the interaction between those aspects, which are by themselves complex, and let's seize any opportunity that we can think of to put in practice a pinamata approach, if possible, but we need all hands on deck. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, and one thing that struck me when we talked at lunch, you mentioned that one of the things that had struck you in hearing conversations about coal was how little the political economy was discussed. And I heard the exact same comment made in a session on oil, which struck me, but I'm wondering, especially from the perspective of the work that you've been doing on coal, and what insights did you get from comparison, basically, with all these other conversations? Well, first, I'd say that the situation has considerably improved after the last session we had on coal just before, which was very much about political economy, and that really gave a lot to the discussions and to understand the state of what we know and what we know we don't know. So, about that, one aspect I wanted to highlight is the legal battle. So it seems that, more and more, the battle between pro-coal development and other fossil fuel development and the resistances are happening in courts. And this, on one side, makes me happy because I'm thinking, wow, I mean, these companies have been so powerful that they just got their way around until now. I mean, that's fine. No problem. We do what we want. Nobody says anything. And that shows that something is changing here. And in the Colombian case, the proper companies, knowing that they don't have control on the outcome of these decisions anymore, starts to ask for clearer rules of the game while before it was all about not having any rules of the game. So that's quite interesting. But at the same time, these kind of procedures are extremely expensive, as we heard, and also requires a lot of technical knowledge. And in that sense, I'm concerned that people in the ground, which are actually directly affected by whether we're exploiting or not these resources, well, it's difficult to access to the place where the battle is being taken. So that brings me to another point, which is when we're talking about investments or divestments, we're talking about people. We're talking about development. We're talking about fishermen, about small farmers. And, yeah, and with models, we cannot forget that. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mayan. So I have just eight points. You can make that 15, don't worry about it. No, I just put two things out on the table. I want to start with one very specific session that I thought was really interesting that would be nice to come back to, which is a session that Harrow organized on norms and legal measures and so on. And I want to particularly focus on the norms story. And I think it's been sort of a subtext of this workshop. We started with the Beglaide Eakins paper, and really that has been a paper that has lent sort of momentum to some of the civil society organizing. It has been sort of parlayed into discussions about disclosure of fossil fuel risks and so on and so forth. And I think if we're going to get this kind of big transformational change, it has to be tied to cognitive changes and how we think about things, which is a large part of what norms are about. It's a cognitive change along with sort of an ethical layering. And I think it's worth thinking strategically about how we bring about these normative shifts. I think that's much more powerful than assuming that we're in a world that we were hoping we would be in, where we have a top-down legal agreement on things. We're not in that world. But I think we are in the world where there's lots of space for these kinds of normative changes. And I think that actually we've talked a lot about models here, and the most powerful use of the models is not actually to directly inform policy, because too often there's just too many slips. I think Richard from Australia has told us this again and again in ever more convincing and metaphor-rich language, which I have appreciated. So I think sort of thinking about the use of our models, and it's a point I've tried to make, that it's sort of both the productive use of it as well as the implicit narratives latent in those models is important. The second related point then is, since we're in this norm-changing, narrative-building, nationally-determined kind of world of Paris, it's kind of curious that Paris has been sort of relatively not part of the discourse here. Not in concrete terms. And maybe that's okay, because there are lots of other meetings, notably the one here last week that was all about Paris. But I think we would be doing ourselves a disservice if we didn't make the links. So even thinking about the norm-shifting part of the story, there are hooks, the positive gloss on Paris, and I actually buy that, it's not just a gloss, is that Paris gives lots of hooks and crannies to actually leverage change. So if you are trying to norm-shift, thinking about using the facilitative dialogue, thinking about using the global stock-take, getting your analysis in place beforehand so that elements of what you do, I talked to Shivan, for example, about how do you make sure that equity narratives in ways that make sense, because there are ways that don't make sense, are part of the global stock-take. How do we use that? There are lots of other pieces to it. If you're talking about a moratorium, do you want to start thinking about moratoria as explicitly reflected in countries' IMDCs and pitching that as a way to go forward, making that again part of the benchmark? If you're talking about engaging companies, there's the whole NASCAR story in Paris. I think a lot of this has to operate, some of it at the global level, but some also at the national level. So the co-benefit story that has come up so often, how does that get built into the technical expert review part of the Paris Agreement? So I think there's productive ways, and I see a sort of research agenda here, as well as sort of an action agenda. We've got a few years to make these links and to think about norm-shifting using some of these mechanisms that are latent in Paris. Thank you so much. Frank? Thank you very much indeed. First of all, I would like to congratulate SCI for organizing this wonderful event. The psychology of the orchestration was brilliant, actually, because I got interested in it, and suddenly I began to get messages from three or four sources simultaneously saying that space was limited, and unless I wrote a really compelling letter outlining why I had to be here, that all would be lost. It was really a close call. It was really, yes. And the fact that it's being led by somebody with the name Lazarus, I think, has wonderful biblical potentials as well, so it's great, great, great to be here. I would also, I think, like to congratulate Paul Eakins and Christoph Maglade and the SCI team for at least in my experience and the Carbon Trials, so the kind of three thought leadership pieces that certainly put this whole agenda, crystallized it in a terrific way for us at the Environmental Defense Fund, and I'm really grateful for that because it takes a lot of time and effort to not just have an idea about to convert it into substantive analytical thought and so on, so well done. My organization, the Environmental Defense Fund, its motto is finding the ways that work, and we take that very seriously in the sense that we don't embrace a proposition unless we see a way through to the outcome part of the jigsaw, and we have a predisposition towards getting markets, designing markets, so they do most of the work towards that end and so on. And in that context, I think my suggestion for the next phase of our endeavor here would be to focus most of our effort on the how, but how do we actually, which is kind of what we've all been saying. It's very, very, so I think that the analysis of the problem now is crystal clear and I think it's been beautifully done and diminishing returns are set into continuing to restate the problem, and I think the analysis of the solution should be the next wave, so to speak, so it would be great to meet a year from now where that was the main event. The fact that we're dealing with sovereign states is a huge issue, and we economists have all the kind of free rider and all of that kind of issue, but it was crystallized to me by a Chinese friend at EDF recently, and he was, we're talking about this, and he was saying when he listens to an Englishman who's telling him very wise and rigorous and thoughtful suggestions about what they should do in China, he's thinking of the Opium War. And there's this kind of drag of history that has a huge kind of issue, and I think we haven't, to me anyway, we haven't kind of thought a way through to the whole nuance of getting people to do things that at the face of it they don't really particularly want to do. I thought the last session we were at, which was the coal thing and focused on Germany and South Africa, was the first kind of module I was at that was singularly focused on policy instruments and how to move them forward. And I think to kind of articulate what the policy instrument set is, but this is the way we think anyway at EDF, and then try to work through what role each can play singularly or in tandem using case study evidence where we can do that. I love the Minamata and the drugs model because the examples don't have to come from our own kind of narrow perspectives. But if we could build an evidence base for what works and what doesn't work, the German case, as it turned out, was extremely depressing. So it was a case study where the polluters were paid or it wasn't what we would particularly end up wanting to advocate, but it was very insightful, I thought, kind of story. But so we need stories from the past and then I think the looking forward, the ex-ante modeling work and so on needs to become, perhaps the modeling itself doesn't need to become more sophisticated, but all the collateral work that should inform the modeling, I think, needs to happen in parallel. Finally, two themes that I think deserve more treatment than we gave and we had one paper on trade and trade management, the WTO, there's a whole infrastructure there that's very, very powerful, that wasn't, I think, kind of developed subsequently and I think it's kind of got pushed aside in the climate thing generally, but in this particular instance I think it could have another role. Also, I would like to see the carbon capture and storage or seco-station issue, you know, back on the agenda rather than just kind of assumed away because it's not happening in Canada. Thank you. Thank you. Support. Well, you know, I will say that after the last two days I think the predominant feeling I have is almost a feeling of relief. You know, for really since your paper came out, Paul and Christoph, in nature for me there's been this such an intense disconnect between my own country's level of ambition and what I think is politically possible in a jurisdiction that is sitting on a massive carbon pool and what we need to do. So the last two days, you know, if nothing else have been like therapy, so thank you for the right conversation. But I think, you know, the essential thing that we have uncovered in this conversation that we're not talking about enough globally and no one is accounting for constraining carbon even though we need to keep two-thirds in the ground. And when I raise this with folks who work internationally at the UNSCC processor with people domestically on climate policy, I frequently get, you know, the wisdom of the markets. We'll take care of that. Really? Given where we are today, why do we continue to think that the wisdom of the markets is going to solve the tragedy of the commons? It makes no sense. And so having a conversation here, I think the critical pieces of the conversation for me is a recognition which I think we need to do more publicly that our accounting right now on climate emissions is demand-side accounting and that we need a new accounting system for supply-side policies. And so our supply-side country is responsible for embedded emissions in the carbon we take out of the ground or are we only responsible for production emissions? I think it's Peter from Norway, or Petter, who said this best. Who should be in the position to sell the last barrel of oil? That's a critical question in the time that we have. I also discovered that my work is in creating norms which I didn't know before, so that's interesting. But I think that that conversation for me was really formative. We need a new norm created on the international stage. We need a race to the top around constrained carbon. So how do we create that conversation? How do we create accountability for how much reserves are being constrained? And I think this relates to the constant drumbeat that you have from the fossil fuel industry against climate policy. Because what I get every time I meet with an oil company is competitiveness and leakage. Those are the issues that they're most concerned about constantly. So how do we start comparing countries, industries, companies that addresses constrained carbon? And I really, even just on a basis of oil jurisdictions, we're not doing comparisons on climate policy today to the impact it will have so that we can address those arguments of competitiveness and leakage, let alone then create a conversation of how that relates to constrained carbon. I thought the initial results were the importance of subsidies in the U.S. production that was presented I think by Doug Koplow. That was shocking. 50% of U.S. production is not profitable at current prices without subsidies. For me, that showed that if we want to move forward now on some policies, as you talked about when you opened this conference, Michael, then that's clear that the subsidies are critical. And then I'll end with a couple of other policy options that need to be explored around creating rules for supply side accounting. I think we need to think very creatively. Could we create a new category of avoided emissions that maybe can't be accounted for in an INDC, but could be in a voluntary market? Or are we looking at accounting for constrained carbon somehow within the INDCs? Do we need just a framework regionally for avoided emissions? Do we need a framework regionally for a CCS as a potential to call that play? And I think Dr. Jackard's work on looking at market economic analysis to test for infrastructure because that, to me, is the essential piece that is wrong here, is that we create climate policies and we continue to approve infrastructure that locks us in. And those conversations in almost every country are completely disconnected. Our approval process and our environmental process for infrastructure is completely disconnected from our development of climate policy. And so then we end up with infrastructure that will live for 20 to 30 years. And that's a critical problem. Thank you. So we have technically 25 minutes to get everybody else's input and any further comments that our panel wants. I did want to say a couple of things reflecting on what you were talking about. One of the things that really struck me is that we had such a diverse group of people here and we had the modelers and we had the storytellers and we had the fighters all in the same room. And I'm not entirely sure that we've really reckoned with how differently each of those constituencies is talking. And I thought it was interesting that probably nobody said it more clearly than Arna A, who seems to have left already, but from Satoyal, when he was saying quite simply, when we're deciding what we're going to do about the oil, who gets to produce the last oil, it's a choice of whether you do market efficiency or whether you do more or whether you do it on the basis of morality. And that is the kind of tension that we're dealing with here and yet we're not entirely dealing with it. And one of the things that I hope will happen from the conversations that have happened here is that the moral people and the efficiency people will talk to each other a little bit more. The math keeps on the storytellers and the fighters, you know. But anyway, so one thing that I really wanted to get from everybody and you're welcome, basically what I'm going to do is I'm going to invite you all to raise your hands when you want and also our panelists in the exact same way to try to be as inclusive as possible. What did you learn today in the last two days that really, like you had a Naha moment of something that you were like, wow, I had never thought of that before. Or this changes how I think about something. Can you think of a moment like that that you had during this conference that you feel you will take away from here and will change how you think going forward? Richard? Thanks. I guess as a former modeler and someone known for their rhetorical flourish, I must not be a fighter. You managed to be all three in one body. Can I just say thank you to Mike and Harrow and Marion. What a fantastic event and on behalf of no one or everyone, how about a round of applause for these guys. Seriously, it's such an important event. I've learned so much and I know everyone here that I've spoken to has enjoyed it so much and it only happened because you guys not just had the vision, but you had the follow through to make it happen. You don't change anything without the vision and the follow through. So thank you and well done. A big picture, just a couple of things came up down there that I think are really important. For me as an economist, the supply side versus the demand side has never made a lot of sense and I think it's Fernando put it well. It's great that there's a disproportionate number of people in this room who are probably saying supply side. My big outtake is that the worst thing that could happen the worst thing that could happen is that we unite as a group around supply side and then divide around whose supply side measure is best. Now, political strategy is a finite commodity and it's not evenly distributed and there are plenty of historical examples of minority groups winning and we can learn from them and you'll never hear right-wing business groups disagreeing about whether low wages are more or less important than low taxes. You will never, ever hear that. There's a whole package of reforms that they want. They want low taxes, they want low wages, they want their version of deregulation and free trade and they'll take whatever they can get whenever it's on offer and they'll never disagree with each other publicly about which one should be the priority. So to join that thought with I was called a norm entrepreneur for the first time in this conference too and the most harmful thing that I think we could do as people that want to shift norms is bag each other's norms. It's not a fight between which supply side policy is optimal. If we divide around who's got the cleverest supply side policy we'll undermine each other's norms. Just as demand side policies have got a role multiple supply side policies have got a role and that's a new normal. Get that out there and we'll achieve a lot. Bigger about which one and we'll probably achieve nothing but again that's not how I feel I feel really inspired by this event I'm saying moving forward let's not break up into factions as to who's got the coolest supply side policy. Thank you. Thank you. Over there please. Here I think it's what's your name first I'm sorry I'm from the Kogel industry and that illustrates what I'm about to say. We've had a very good interdisciplinary discussion here but we have not had representatives or very many representatives of the fossil fuel industries and we need to do we need to engage them in dialogue having also we need to engage the politicians, the real policymakers and I know that some of us here are doing that but they weren't policymakers were not here and the third group of people who aren't here with the investors we need to be talking to the people who've got loads of money and are currently keeping that money in the fossil fuel industries and not putting it into the renewable industries so it's those three people that I would, three groups of people that I would love to see at a future conference. Thank you that's a very good comment and actually I will give a bit of a nod to the Cicero panel which actually did a remarkably good job of getting quite a bit of that in our panel so over here Paul and I would love to hear from people who have not spoken a lot so if you are female and quiet and shy you now have two minutes to formulate your question or if you're male and quiet and shy go ahead I'm not a female nor quiet and shy so thank you I'd like to share something which I've come to very late I've been doing environmental stuff for nearly 40 years and it's only struck me which is a very strange thing that humans are an aspirational species if we want something to happen in this space we've got to give people something to aspire to and I think my research gender for such time as is left with me by that and three big questions firstly finding the evidence that a low carbon future is both possible and can work technically and physically secondly that a low carbon future is happening so that all around us we can see the evidence some of it is fragile and scarce and thirdly and we've talked a lot about this so the low carbon future will be better for the current generation as well as for the future generations those are the three beliefs which we have to engender and because we're researchers we rely on evidence which obviously is always contingent but that has led me to the thought that actually there's very very many different strategies for arriving at those beliefs so whether it's in 350.org that speaks directly to the fact that the momentum is building for a low carbon future whether it's the moratorium or the mandating of CCS those are the policy mechanisms of actually ensuring that this stuff is implemented whether it's the moral suasion which we've heard quite a bit of the stuff about norms that it's the right thing to do and humans are being aspirational we are also ethical in some respect and the last thing I'd like to support on the table is something that I only learned about a couple of days ago and it speaks directly to Sepora's issues of carbon leakage and competitiveness because like you in all the conversations I have with both policy makers and business people that's what comes up and it was a very nice policy formulated by a group called climate strategies that I haven't seen directly represented here people like Michael Grubb are very much involved with that Karsten Neuhoff some of us will know them and it's a consumption tax it's a consumption tax on the products of energy intensive industries and therefore they're free of upstream taxation and that means that they can export free of tax and it's a consumption tax on all the products of those energy intensive industries including the imports so you've kind of got benefits of a border tax adjustment without actually fiddling around with trade and all the difficulties that you have with that. Something from climate strategies just to look up on Google it's a very very interesting and expert paper and to me it's the best solution I found for competitiveness and carbon leakage arguments. Thanks. Thank you. Over up there I think Jesse may have something to say but in the meantime the numbers. Oh I'm sorry. Okay you can go first and that gives Jesse more time to for me then. Okay well to go ahead can you give her. Since Mariam you asked about what we learned about here I think that I first as you Paul said low carbon technologies and so are taking place in Canada and enterprise it's changing the portfolio. This is something I didn't have so clear but the second thing that I learned here is that the concern about the morality of the change and the question of the model and historical responsibility who are the ones to pay for the pollution and for the climate change and that brings me to the compensation and so who and what are the criteria to put that in place. I think that morality of the problem and the historical responsibility are for me very important for my future work. Thank you so much. Congratulations because the conferencing has been very very very good. So anybody else I want to actually ask a quick question of numbers as well while she goes up there. You mentioned that you talked about the opportunities within the UNFCCC and one of the things that struck me is I remember watching the last even faint oblique mention of fossil fuel investment being deleted from the Paris agreement and it was only oblique the word fossil wasn't in there it was like high carbon investment or something like that what makes you hopeful what makes you think that fossil can be uttered without somebody turning into sand. The reason I said that is the sort of mutually agreed to ceasefire in Paris was let's not try and judge each other right up front that every country figure out what its dynamic is going to be and then we'll come back and do some kind of soft judging where everybody gets to have a judge every country gets to nominate a judge it's a very soft competition let's put it that way but the game has shifted to basically saying alright we can't have a global political economy solution you each have to figure out your national political economy solutions and so the debate that's going on in Nigeria over oil and human rights that is going to be part of what Nigeria thinks about in India it's going to be trying to figure out this jobs transition in China that's how do you manage the investment to keep the government stable and deal with air pollution and it's in that context that Paris provides sort of ways for lots of different stories to emerge and then overlaid on top of that are kind of global narratives so this whole battle about the transition is going to play itself out in country after country and I think our job is to find ways of nudging it along from the international level to the extent we can but the drivers have got to be national political economies and mobilization in countries and those national mobilizations are entirely about the fossil fuel transition because I think of India as a particularly prime example of a country that is considerably more progressive and open minded when it's talking within it's own family that when it goes to India does not like to be told what to do but it's quite willing to do very nice things when not being told to and I think a lot of countries are like that nobody likes to be told and I think we heard that again and again so I'd be really you know okay Jesse I know I put you in a corner you're still thinking of course I applaud everyone here and the conference organizers for a wonderful event and I just wanted to open it up to the panel and to the rest of us about how to think about making the investment choices and the performance of oil and gas and for that matter coal companies more transparent to the end users by transparency at the gas pump for wholesalers to airlines or trucking fleets in terms of what are the investment choices that's only carbon intensity and the methane intensity of those kinds of investments how do consumers discern between the good performers and the laggards and how do we inform that whole field as well as the consumers themselves who from the panel would like to answer that yeah I think the whole information is one key piece of the portfolio I think so back to my earlier suggestion of being fairly kind of meticulous and rigorous about interrogating each policy instrument and seeing what it has to offer certainly in the financial community in New York and I think it's reflected in London in this you know Bloomberg initiative with the G20 or whatever there is a kind of proposition that if the investors have credible kind of independently verified information about the stocks flows and so on that you could go a long way towards the transition just with that one instrument directed at that one pool of to me that's at the present it's a hypothesis and it's kind of happening there's a great guy called Bob Litterman who was the head of risk management with Goldman Sachs and of course when you say that half the audience usually starts booing but he saved them you know literally billions in that job when he was in the bank but he's now working largely on climate risk basically but he's created a vehicle for WWF on which on whose board he is which has made the NGO a large sum of money by betting against fossil fuels basically so it's kind of a hedging vehicle but that's just to answer I totally endorse that proposition but it's one among many and I think there are many flowers that need to bloom on the policy side of which that's one Does anybody else want to add in? You do? I actually worry about this concept of labeling and accounting and accountability in that sense because I think it feeds the norm that we are consumers before we're voters and you know ultimately I think we need to be empowering civil society and providing benchmarks that hold governments accountable and then the industry operating within those nation states accountable and I'm starting to wonder whether it's as simple as creating a norm about how much carbon you're constraining and because you know okay so let's say it's not accountable in the UNFCC process right now but doesn't have to be because what is the UNFCC process right now it's a peer to peer race to the top right and ultimately countries are arguing for social license within their countries and externally in terms of their reputational capital right my prime minister I want to make it seem to Canadians like he's a good guy because the majority of Canadians want climate action the majority of Canadians believe in low carbon development and so what civil society and all those campaigns need is a bar is an accounting is to figure out who's a good guy and who's a bad guy the next time there's an election and we make it so difficult for them like 80% by 2050 but he's using five benchmarks so he's a bad guy like if I've got five minutes before I pack my kids lunch you know at night before I go to bed I don't have time to figure out then who's a bad guy and who's a good guy and it doesn't become a vote determinant of issue so part of our job is to set criteria that makes this accessible and so can we set criteria at least for the developed countries around how much is being constrained how much of a good guy are we I don't know but I'm more excited about that than by accounting by corporations and labeling because I don't think we have time speaking of time we now are down to the last roughly four minutes so if anybody has one last comment so there are two questions that I don't feel like we're sufficiently addressed and this is partly because we all these people have had such nice things to say but one thing was what Hugh mentioned briefly who is missing from this room that we should have had and question number two is where do we you know what do you hope happens next so very little time like basically anybody who gets handed the microphone and speaks for more than 30 seconds will have the microphone walk away from them now alright okay let's how do you want to start like let's just do it from the bottom move up but yes since I have 30 seconds I'll be very quick but I want to second what Sephora said about accounting because we have to be aware that unless there's an incentive for people to account for leaving fossil fuels in the ground or taking fossil fuel supply side policies right now there's absolutely no way that they can benefit from it because when you account for your emissions you account for the emissions from your country and if you extract a lot of oil and sell it to somebody else there's just no benefit to you for keeping it in the ground someone else gets that accounts for those emissions so an institutional policy and accounting framework is what is needed to give this initiative some incentive in the ground in action great thank you I think Sheila's next you're right and then Sheila you can pass it in front of you just very quickly in terms of people who are I don't know if they're necessarily missing but will be great to have next time is around potentially people who work more on economic history and those working on economic transformations in other sectors so trying to understand how this has happened in the past and how this is happening in other sectors we'll discuss this a bit with Claudia at the coffee great thanks hi Neil and in terms again of who's missing although we had some representation very little representation from developing countries and yet the vast majority of countries are not really wrestling with climate change as their top agenda the wrestling with poverty the wrestling with service provision and so forth so we need Indonesia in the room we need Kenya in the room we need an awful lot more developing country representatives thank you all right now let's there's a whole other room up there so just work your way up you know along just two quick things I was going to try to make a joke but I can't fit it in I think we need to look a little more so it's kind of two research areas maybe or more publication areas is how supply side interventions can be a tool to address the socio-political dimension of this because I think that that came up a lot here and was really inspiring there's this debate over rational or irrational actors and I think we need to look at whether there's this political dimension and can supply side our supply side interventions maybe a tool that's optimal for discouraging the individual actor from behaving so-called irrationally but it's only irrational from the broader perspective but it's rational from their self-interest and maybe we can use supply side for that so more research into that and then I think the more research into how the how supply side interventions can you know the dynamic between supply and investments in renewables and the pace of adoption of the climate policies we want so those are my two ideas great thanks it's right behind you directly behind you who's missing somebody from Saudi Arabia more people from Russia more people from China maybe some of the policymakers who have already put in place moratoria frontline communities who are fighting against fossil extraction in terms of this accounting that's something that we've been looking into but we definitely want to do that adding up different supply side policies and say okay how much does that take off the charge of this huge carbon bubble and how far do we get in implementing the Paris ambition by adding all these different supply side policies together so if you're interested in that I think that's something we should be talking about anyone else okay literally two more people that's it so you'll have a lot of sort of there so very quickly what I'd like to see next is a bigger body of research and analytics supporting the things we take for granted we need we need more hard thinking that we can point to on things like the notion that leakage is not as in completely displaced demand notions that for example in the oil and gas sector that supply infrastructure really does get locked in this reflects some really very high level conversations with the Obama administration where the dearth of things to point to that we believe the common sense things that we take for granted almost was really evidence and it was clear that those are something not shared by high level policy makers I think I will literally be rested away from here if I don't stop now just to thank you all for being here and please if you have additional comments tweet them email them this is not the end of the conversation by any means oh no thank you Mary and don't worry this is not a speech so this is why we invited you here why we organized it it's 532 exhausting days and the hands are still going up so it's clear that we did this because there was a conversation that wasn't happening and we wanted to bring everybody together I won't go through the various reasons why we think the supply side needs to enter the conversation we don't know where that goes you have a lot of great ideas let's keep going with this so I just wanted to say thank you all for the energy you bring to this it's been tremendous and that's what's made this event so fantastic so congratulate yourself and in a sense we've just let it appetites so where do we go from here the pub of course so Harrow will fill us in on the details of that in a second if you still got stamina for it but there are some more concrete things where do we go from here we're going to continue with this fossil fuel initiative will there be more events like this while it's kind of up to you clearly we couldn't invite everybody or we couldn't get everybody here we didn't invite a lot of folks from these underrepresented communities here should there be more events we need to hear from you and we're glad to share it it was last year that Ben Caldecott organized the standard assets conference and that inspired us to hold the same here he said oh yeah not every year pass the baton to pass if anybody wants to grab it we will make the power points and the webcast generally available and when we send out that email we'll also we're also going to solicit your ideas and maybe in a forum when you all can continue to talk to each other we'll also get your contact details shareable so you can reach out to each other easily you don't have to be asking each other for cards as you head out of here and Harrow you truly know you reached the end of the conference when we get to the thank you stage but also when the word top is mentioned so I'll get to that at the very end but I do want to go through a few more thank yous before we get to the very end one very important for us especially given their webcast is of course there are funders you'll notice the pattern in the types of funders so it's the Swedish Research Council form us the Norwegian Research Council and the Swedish Development Agency so you may see the spot of pattern there but I want to thank them at least for making this possible and also for making the participation for a lot of people here in the room possible as well second I wanted to thank the members of the steering group who've been helping to shape this conference behind the scenes quite a lot so we have Harrow we have Gory with Frank Jotso please Jesse raise your hand then I also really want to thank our colleagues at SCI who've been really helpful in the last few months and again trying to make this possible logistically because otherwise it wouldn't be a complete nightmare for Michael and myself so first I wanted to thank the reporters who've been taking extensive notes throughout the conference so we have Pete, Ericsson, we have Adrian down we have Hasim of Gari and I now have to thank NB of May who've basically been taking notes throughout the conference which will also make it possible for us to convey some of the messages back to you so thank you last but not least three other people who have been very very important I am not forgetting them first of all Julia and Stefan who have been basically answering all your questions and finally Mary and Dave who is not only a great moderator but also has been working literally day and night in the last few weeks for this and then very very finally thanks again to all of you for basically making this possible like it's the speakers, the moderators but the conversations in these rooms in the corridors and these are the kind of conversations that we want to keep going also in the next years whether we're organizing another conference next year or not I think it's very important that the conversations are being had and to start with in the King's Arms let's say half an hour from now so whoever wants to come there and at the COP of course sorry it's a plug important plug COP 22 Marrakesh there will be at least several supply sites climate policy events one organized by SEI, ODI and OCI and another event organized by Shevan and Greg from OCI on Equity so don't forget that as well but in a more immediate future King's Arms in about half an hour five minutes walking from here if you don't know where it is just follow us right thank you