 We would also like to get a lot of views from all of you to understand what are the best learnings and what is the way ahead for using technology in the best way possible. What are the challenges, and of course, the opportunities. I'd like to begin by inviting Minister Al-Mashat to share some of her thoughts, especially the experience of your country and the steps that you have been taking. Lovely to be here in the growth summit. Let me maybe reflect on Egypt being the president of COP this year. We had COP 27 in Sharma Sheikh in November. And for countries to move whether on the mitigation aspect or adaptation aspect, innovation is extremely important. If we're looking at renewables, there's so much that can be saved through technology. If we're looking at adaptation, whether it's water desalination or also advancements in agriculture and so forth, it's also through innovation that we can meet the climate goals faster. However, this requires a lot of partnerships and engagement from the different stakeholders. Government pushing scientific research, opening up more for venture capital, particularly when it comes to climate issues. It also requires a strong private sector. And maybe when we look at the financing of climate solutions, private sector needs to come in quite largely. However, the financing, and this was one of the big themes during COP, the innovative types of financing. So blended finance where MDBs and some of the grant money can come actually to encourage more innovation in climate solutions I think is extremely important, particularly because of the risk taken in betting on some of these new technologies. So I believe that it's a private sector. It's government. It's also pushing forward on venture capital. Just to give a very small statistic, I think a quarter of venture capital money goes to climate solutions. However, there is regional disparity. It's mostly in Europe and in the US. Nonetheless, there's so much that needs to be done in developing economies. And that's why also partnerships and being able to push forward the global goals, which require both national efforts, but also a lot of private public partnerships. Thank you. There is the concern in the Global South Minister that perhaps the burden is too much on the Global South. And is that a concern in your government and in your country? Absolutely. I mean, when we take a look at a continent such as Africa, the amount of emissions are less than 3% globally. I mean, they're the contribution of the continent. Nonetheless, the impact is huge. And there's so much investments that need to be done. When we take a look at the global environment today with increasing interest rates and so forth, the cost of investment is going up more. And that's why there needs to be, and this is a discussion that is taking place within the MDB ecosystem and also between governments and the private sector. How can we create just financing? So how can we maintain not just a quantity of finance, but a sustainable flow of financing for the developing countries or emerging markets that are not emitters, but actually need to move forward? And that's where several initiatives have been taken. For example, we have the G7. There are JETP initiatives, the Just Energy Transition Platforms. In our case, we created our own platform, the Nexus of Water, Food and Energy, the Noefi platform, which is a way to leverage on international partnerships and look at concessional finance in a way that can actually draw in the private sector, not just to our mitigation agenda, but also for our agriculture and irrigation. So there's so much that has been done in terms of call for action. And our COP was from pledges to implementation. And we were trying to set the tools so that we can actually push for implementation. And let me conclude by saying that we also with a partnership with the different stakeholders issued the Sharma Sheikh guidebook for Just Financing, which is a toolkit of how we can move from pledges to implementation, be it on the technology side, be it on blended finance, innovative finance, and also case studies where the private sector can come in adaptation, which is maybe not always typical in the literature. That's good thought. You talk about the three keywords, partnership, private sector, and finance. And I think these are the three pillars that we have to explore on how well they are working together to hold up our objectives. Murad, from your perspective, you are private sector, right? So tell us about how Schneider is approaching it. There is clearly a business opportunity there. And you also have to innovate to create solutions, not just for one country. You have to look at diverse markets and diverse situations, diverse sectors. Because climate tech is actually a very vast subject. Nearly everything can be called climate technology. How is Schneider approaching this? Well, I think after Rania's intervention, and we are working also with the Egyptian government on utilities and deploying, I would say, digital command centers to digitize the distribution network in Egypt, and helping somehow also to optimize the network and reduce, I would say, the energy losses and automating the whole solution. Just to say that when we talk about the collaboration and partnership between private and public sector, these are real things. So I'm kind of here working in a very, I would say, large corporation where sustainability has been really at the heart of the strategy at a very, very early stage. We do, I would say, energy management and process automation for our customers. And we believe pretty early that those technologies were there to support, I would say, our customers to make the best of their energy, decarbonize their processes, decarbonize also their energy. We have the opportunity to also run around 200 factories around the globe, 100 distribution centers that makes a lot of square meters, that makes a lot of processes. And we believed quite early on the fact that if we want to be relevant, we have to work the talk. And we immediately, I mean, pretty early at a pretty early stage, started adopting the technologies, monitoring our energy consumption, digitizing some of the processes with the objective for us to really deliver this sustainability transformation. So a few years ago, when we started at Schneider Electric to drive, I would say, the supply chain strategy, we called it the tailored, sustainable, and connected 4.0. That was somewhere in 2016, 2015. We moved, I would say, recently in the last three years in what we call the strive transformation, which is strive for sustainable, trusted, resilient, intelligent, and velocity efficiency. Because we really believe that there is no, I would say, future of supply chain without sustainability. We have the opportunity to provide a lot of technologies with all the electrical powertrain, so bringing the energy to the homes, the buildings, to the processes. And with the objective to be able to monitor the consumption and measure is probably the first step of being able, I would say, to deliver a more efficient process. We also believe in the integration between, I would say, the energy powertrain and the process automation. And that's supported by digital and by software, where in fact, the digital has been now at the heart of, I would say, this overall transformation. We see in some of our facilities that by investing in the technology, we are able to reduce by 20%, 25% the energy consumption. And somehow we demonstrate to our customers how they can also use these technologies inside their own processes. What I can also say is that the way we see sustainability is really an end-to-end approach. We have engaged a year and a half ago with about 1,000 of our suppliers, where we committed to reduce by half their CO2 emission. And once again, helping them in the journey of decarbonization in the journey of sustainability, providing them resources, providing them support with consulting solutions. We are also now providing the ability to open up for PPAs, solutions to enable them to buy power purchasing agreement, where they could benefit of the consolidation of all that. So a lot going on on our side. And honestly, I'm quite proud on the fact that we are able not only to do the work for ourselves, we are also able to engage with our suppliers. And we are able also to engage with our customers. And the idea for us is by 2030 to be, I would say, carbon neutral, by 2040 to be net zero carbon. And we are planning today to, I would say, spend the equivalent of 250 million euros in the next seven years just to support this decarbonization plan. Thank you. I'll come to you because when you say you're doing it for others, not just for yourself. I think that's the important point. And I would assume that many of your clients are in the government because the government has a very important role in that. But we'll hold that thought. Let me talk to Eric now. Eric, you're of course the favorite for the environmentalist as a sector. But I think there is a very conscious effort in the energy space to use technology to improve the practices. Can you give us a sense of what is the best practices being adopted in the sector now? Yeah, representing the supply side of the energy market. Of course, we're working a lot on trying to contribute as much as possible to both continue to deliver energy and at the same time deliver decarbonized energy or solutions that make it possible for our customers to decarbonize their use of energy. And it's not an easy task. I think we very often forget the scale of the problem. But we are basically trying to transform our total provisions of energy by moving into the renewable space on the electricity side. The open spots there are basically about intermittent renewables. It's solar and wind. It's not that easy to see a lot of hydroelectric potential around the world, even though there is some. And then, of course, you have to try and figure out how do you do that with combining different kinds of technology so that you can provide electricity when people need it and not only when it blows or when the sun shines, which it doesn't, north of the 50th parallel, where a lot of people in Europe live, as an example. So you have to combine it with batteries. You have to combine it with backup power. We have to figure out ways to decarbonize the molecules. So we're now, as an example, offering the first commercial CO2 storage to the private sector in the world in Europe. So if anybody wants to hire a storage space, please come and talk to us. So CO2 storage is one part of this. The other one is, of course, to combine natural gas with carbon storage. And then you can start the hydrogen economy in earnest. That is also a massive challenge. We think that when we need to start developing the market so soon that we can't wait for having enough renewables to produce green hydrogen, we have to start with the blue in order to make this sufficiently fast. So those are some of the things that we're working on. And at the same time, continuing to provide oil and gas with the lowest emissions in the world, with the lowest methane emissions in the world. In the case of Norway, we're now the largest provider of gas to Europe. And we were able to increase our gas production just when we took Russia out of the equation, or Russia took itself out of the equation. So it's a combined story here. I think on the north-south divide, one of the key challenges is that we're talking about the energy transition and we're doing quite a bit in the rich parts of the world. But it's massively difficult to combine growth in energy demand and deliver on that, reducing poverty, reducing the income differentials, and at the same time reach climate targets. There is no one and a half degree consistent scenario in the IPCC suite of scenarios. That's all that equation. None of the one and a half degree consistent scenarios does anything to reduce the difference in per capita income between the rich and the poor. And given that we don't have the technologies available at sufficient scale, it's basically impossible. And that's one of the problems. So it's one of the challenges. And that has, of course, to do with financing, so the JETP, but it also has to do with the fact that if energy demand grows in the poor parts of the world, which it will do if we reduce income inequalities, we don't have the technologies available to avoid emissions from increasing. And then the only solution is a massive reduction in emissions in the rich parts of the world. And that's very difficult to find, as long as you operate within a carbon budget. So the technology challenges are big and the scaling of all this is very, very challenging. You know the narrative in the Global South is very clear that the Global North grew by carbonizing the world. Now, if the Global South does the same because the quality of life aspirations is the same as in Europe and the US, are we in a position to say that, well, you cannot do it because if you do it, you're going to hurt everybody else. I have done it, but you know, I've done it. So I think there is a serious crisis there. And therefore, the burden of using technology for making sure that the climate is better taken care of somewhere comes on the people who created the climate crisis. Everybody's suffering, but the creators need to take a bit more of that burden. And that's what brings me to Rich. How do you feel about this burden on you, Rich? We feel it, it's a meaningful burden. So I represent maybe a policy perspective here. So my organization works with policy makers in DC and bipartisan policy makers. So we focus in particular on conservative policy makers. So let me just say a word about all of these constraints that I feel like we're all operating under and how that forces the technology conversation. So in the United States, as in the rest of the world, we're dealing with a situation of intense inflation first and foremost, and that obviously changes the calculus, a lot of these technologies that we thought were so interesting because there were low, high CAPEX, low OPEX in a world of low interest rates. Suddenly that no longer looks as promising a pathway for decarbonization, or let me say a more challenging pathway. Second, obviously we remain in the midst of a global energy crisis, somewhat abated since last year, but very potentially spiking again this year. So that's both a challenge and an opportunity, obviously, for some parts of US exports, particularly cleaner fossil exports. We're seeing already the increasing challenges of global carbon dioxide emissions. So we've had intensely extreme weather in the United States, and really maybe in the last year the first nationwide feelings that the effects are happening and are causing great stress to our existing energy system. Obviously we're continuing to suffer through global supply chain chaos, as are everyone in this room, I'm sure. And last, we have a very difficult situation with not in my backyard or NIMBY opposition and broader permitting challenges, bureaucratic challenges to building anything at this point. We've sort of weaponized these processes in the United States so that virtually anyone can stop any project. So I will end the gloom and doom there and just say with all of those challenges, I think we're making significant progress in the policy conversation around this in the US. We're really in this space of false choices, we have to do 100% renewables or we should continue investing in fossil fuels. We were in a false choice around, well, we need to do everything here at home or ignore all action because the global situation is so challenging so it's not worth taking anything on. And I think we've broken through all of that. So the three messages I would leave are that there is significant new, I would say very durable support for policy action on all of this in the United States. For us, durable means bipartisan. So over the last now five years, there have been historic investments in every form of government. So in fully Republican-controlled government, fully Democratic-controlled government, bipartisan government, there have been historic investments, much of it focused on this innovation challenge. The second message I'd leave is, given all of these challenges, I think the US has taken very much a portfolio approach to innovation and so we're not leaving any deep decarbonization technology off the table. Everything has permission for the moment in our political consensus. And so that's everything from advanced nuclear to fossils with carbon capture, to long-duration energy storage to firm up renewables, to hydrogen, to carbon dioxide removal, to deep decarbonization technologies for heavy industry like clean steel and clean concrete and petrochemicals through the whole suite of these things. And last but not least, I'd say it's a very export-oriented strategy. So we're taking seriously this idea that if these investments are going to be meaningful in the United States, they'll only help the climate if they're then exported to the rest of the world, ideally with more export credit than we've provided over the past decade or so. We're sort of back in the game in export credit. I'm happy to talk more about that. And ideally also done in a way, obviously, that starts to rebuild portions of US manufacturing and US industry, which we largely seeded over the past two decades. Thanks, Rich. I'd like to turn to Dr. Ishii. You were one of the architects of the Green Climate Fund and you've heard all the other eminent speakers. You've seen the variety of views and experiences, but adaptation has challenges. Can you help us understand what are the challenges you see? Well, just listening to the previous speakers and I think we all understand the depths and the breadth of the challenge we are facing and then while still people are talking about 100 billion on how much going into M and how much going into A, those question is quite meaningless or it's not really useful, that the things we really do need to understand is how the mitigation adaptation should be at least and what is really the missing piece to make it really work in the real world. From that point of view, even the mitigation side where that the technology is kind of being progressed, the finance is kind of being slow, the challenge we are facing is just enormous, that the ETC projected that we need a three trillion US dollars, just not the one trillion that then you just mentioned and then even among those three trillion that then as already mentioned, it's not just flowing naturally, we need really a package of the vision, the policy package that enabling environment and then that just the transition factor in it so that it's also calculated for global North, we may need to double that investment but for global South, they need to triple the cutable that the investment from today. So when we see it, the amount of the finance going to even the mitigation side, the challenge is already mentioned from the previous case, it's just enormous and we just shouldn't count the number of the money, we should really see the package that how this package could address that those challenges of the vision challenge, policy challenge, regulation challenge, then innovation challenge together and if we can really make that just the transition in terms of adaptation, oh really my God, I mean that we are so much in deep trouble and as you already mentioned that the global North created this huge problem and most of the burden is born by global South so we have to really address this and the political just the transition question in a much more serious way that not just the number counting, I think that the minister already proposed actually that reflected that significant progress made at COP 27 of this just the transition partnership and you also see the Shea Mail cycle guiding principle to innocence to combine or assure the just the transition. It's not just the energy sector but the food, agriculture and energy, almost all the part of this development strategy need to incorporate this just the transition factor and then that the finance could flow, then that technology may play that part but without this whole package assured by the leaders both global North and global South, it will not happen. So I'm kind of convinced that we should really aim at that this comprehensive policy package supported by the both leaders of the both side not just the politicians but the business leaders, citizen leaders together and to convince ourselves this is the only way for us to get out of this deep trouble coming any time soon that then on our own lives. So that's a long question to your simple adaptation question. Well, question can be simple answer often is not. I want to stay on this thought when you mentioned policy package and we're going to pose this to all of you. When we look at an ideal policy package what should it have? What are the learnings so far? If I look at finance to broad categories to simplify a bit one to invest in new technologies and second to finance its usage. While there is a business opportunity it cannot be that well, I will send sell you the technology because I also want to profit from it. And so what is your objective of using the technology giving it to the world to improve the world that you live in but you also want to profit off it. So therefore the question is what kind of model or what kind of package is it that can really work from our various experiments with ideas and thoughts so far. So now go and then understand then of course if you have a thought already go ahead. Yeah, I think it's such a complex set of variables that we have to deal with that one policy package probably doesn't cut it at least at the global level or I mean we're facing. If I call it a model not a policy package will that work? Yeah, one of the big things one of the big uncertainties for us as energy companies is that we in this space we have to relate now to government subsidies because we need governments to fix this partly for us right to be for us to be able to drive the transition we need the governments to run ahead of us. I mean that's why the IRA is good news the EU's green package is good news et cetera et cetera because part of this is that we don't make money on these technologies yet. When we put them to the market we have zero marginal cost falling average cost which means that the market doesn't work in and by itself we need market design to ensure that we have a price of electricity when the wind blows which we don't for instance in Germany every hour over. So we need assurance of property rights we need permitting processes we have to be allowed to build something in countries or regions or with technology that we haven't done before and which is one of the story aspects of this is that most of this now most of the energy transition at least on the upstream side takes place in the well-regulated western rich economies which basically have enough energy it's just about replacing old energy with new and the frustration is that it will go too slow in the emerging economies partly because of those types of risks that no government in those countries can guarantee us to avoid. So what is it? How can the rich parts of the world how can the financing community how can we get in to doing investments in places where it is generally very difficult also for it has been rolling out in a way where we can contribute to electrification in Africa with new modern technologies. So it's about removing some of those risks as well that allows us to scale this and we haven't figured it out yet, right? I mean, we do not see the market we haven't seen all the market the science solutions that allows renewable investments electricity investments to be a good proposition five years down the road when we have a lot of wind and solar electricity in the energy market so that has to be fixed. Financing there's a lot of money out there there's a lot of capital out there financial capital but there's not that much real capital we're in supply chain bottlenecks if we throw money at this we're going to over bid and increase the bottlenecks in terms of getting enough steel out of Chinese and Korean Korean shipyards or whatever it is, right? And it's so it's if as an example if we were to decarbonize steel produce green steel with wind electricity and like hydrogen electrolysis global steel production would have to go up by 10% just to have enough steel for the shafts of the wind turbines so this whole energy transition is about the circular economy of this as well so where's the real capital and then you have the Nimbian we call it banana now, right? Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anything so the policy package is in order to make a big difference in terms of at least just energy transition we have to talk seriously about who is going to pay and that has to be the rich countries because there's nobody else that can pay Minister I want to follow up on something Eric mentioned in his earlier intervention and that's the effect on jobs and growth and poverty and one of the key aspects is to look at climate and development as not mutually exclusive that they should come hand in hand if I'm doing a renewable project it is also a developmental project and this is a a realization that is very important in policy making and also in having more platforms of coordination between the different stakeholders the other big aspect is if we're looking at some of what Eric mentioned as well if I'm looking today at the green hydrogen in the case of Egypt for instance there's not much renewables be it wind be it solar panels so with Norway we do have a project which if I'm looking at the financing part it's a foreign company SCATIC where the financing is coming from guarantees from MIGA a grant from the CIF the climate investment fund and concessional finance from EBRD so this is a model where you are able to create cross country partnership with financing which is concessional so that this equation that you mentioned is there is it enough? No, we need more of these examples is it becoming tougher? Yes, because the global backdrop is not easier than it was at COVID it's actually more costly the risk is higher and the resources that are required are much more so there needs to be and I just coming from Washington from the spring meetings this whole discussion on the World Bank evolution and the first element of that was to come up with a definition of the mandate of what the World Bank will be doing in the period ahead and the words resilient, sustainable and inclusive came in the mandate again pushing this idea that climate and development do come hand in hand if we are looking at global public goods and so forth so there are no easy solutions and policies but I believe that there is greater realisation on what each stakeholder needs to do and the importance of technology but technologies are still concentrated in the north and the idea is how can we make them more accessible in the south where the wind, where the solar resources are more available Great, can we get some thoughts and ideas from all of you so please raise your hand Sir, can we have a mic here please do introduce yourself Thank you, thank you for a great session I'm J.J. from Washington University Japan and I think that what I'm discussing is how the alignment of each stakeholder and people and I have a question of what I face with my companies what I'm discussing is the alignment of technologies you talk about the accessibility but what I often hear is there is a good technology one by one but in order to attack those issues the technologies are all separated so many people have a difficulty on aligning the technology to reach this kind of solution and so far I have no crew on the alignment of divided technologies of this area You're the best place to answer this I mean, listening to some of the interventions that have been taking place maybe one element that I think we tend to forget is the greenest energy is the energy you don't consume and we see places where the usage of the technology enables that you have buildings that are net zero you have buildings that are designed embarking I would say enough the digitization the building management system the metering and remote monitoring that enables to run buildings in a way that is really sustainable and that exists so the question is why don't we scale up and working with public sector in making sure that the regulations and somewhere regulation is always like the stick but you also have the carrots to help I would say the architects the specifiers etc to design those processes to design those buildings so you're right on the fact that technology is available now sometimes it has to come together it's a bit disjointed between the generation, the distribution the consumption and making that and linking all that will make I would say the difference and we have some examples by areas on how I was giving the example of the Egypt distribution network that we have worked with the Egyptian utilities I think the fact is when this is driven it brings I would say the solutions but you're right that too many times it's a bit isolated in one sector and again we do believe that the way we build I would say the future of sustainability is a 360 degrees is us as a private company working with our customers helping them to decarbonise but also helping and working with our suppliers and the suppliers of our suppliers I give you another examples when we measure 80% of our carbon emission are made at our suppliers and the suppliers of our suppliers so we can work and when I said investing 250 million euros to decarbonise our own sites our own processes it's only under bracket 20% of the equation okay thank you I think there's a question there and then I'll come maybe you know we have five minutes left if you all don't mind I'll collect the questions and come back please go ahead sir thank you Pranjal thanks for the panel it's John Defteris I have a quick question for Minister Machat and also for Mr President I know you worked at COP 27 very diligently to make sure that the global south particularly Africa was a priority even the frustration that was expressed here by Eric is suggesting we're not taking it seriously enough the global south so even the loss and damage fund has been debated for a long long time do you find it very frustrating it's a lot of discussion but too much time to action if we have a change in president and the work that's been done with the IRA to get it to the to the market do you fear that President Trump or President DeSantis would not ring and roll it back maybe we can get two quick answers from Minister and from Rich and then go to the other two loss and damage was extremely important and this was the first COP that was on the agenda and there was a resolution around it what has been in the works now to finance the trust so there are rounds and discussions and hopefully by COP 28 there will be results because there's so much happening John you're saying is there frustration absolutely in general and as I mentioned because the global financing backdrop is more and more difficult and therefore the amounts that are required are much more than before be it on loss and damage be it even on pushing investments the other countries today have investable projects which was always the excuse that financing is available capital is there but the investable opportunities are now there the risk is much higher and most of the downgrades that took place are taking place in the continent and in emerging markets so it's not very easy we have to keep on pushing for the investability of the project and keep on looking for I understand that the hundred billion are sort of behind us but even the hundred billion have not been fulfilled and the amounts that are needed are much more I don't know if that's... Quick one from you Rich The first part of your question I'll just say quickly I think there are many policymakers and observers in the US have also been very frustrated with this concept that we're going to keep the developing world locked in energy poverty as part of the solution to climate change I think this is why we are so focused on developing a suite of technologies that would actually provide a like for like substitute to the subcritical coal which is so often the choice that so many countries in the developing world are turning to because they're trying to your point not to transition away from anything they're just trying to build an energy system from the ground up and like it or not subcritical coal remains the cheapest fastest way to build an energy system from the ground up which is compatible with solving climate on the political durability of the policy a few things I'll note first the IRA is not the only policy right so there's been this string of things from the huge increases in the 45Q tax incentives to the bipartisan infrastructure law to our chips and science bill there's a whole family of policies now at this point and I'll also say that many of the incentives in the IRA had their genesis in quite bipartisan policies so the 45Q incentives and the clean hydrogen production credits so this will remain a messy debate in the U.S. for sure in the coming years but generally speaking there is significant support for continuing an innovation focused an exports focused policy regime. Thank you. We'll take the two questions. Yep. From the Australian National University given that the cheapest marginal cost electricity is available probably in the global south right now of growing those economies quickly with a lot of energy but variable so that you structure their economies differently than the global north which of course requires a lot of electricity out of solar times for example. Thank you. Can we have the mic here? I think to partly answer your question it's also about internal policies of various countries I can tell you that India one of the biggest challenges we have is a tussle between renewable energy fossil fuel energy and both sides want priority in the distribution and transmission and that's a big fight which is going on. Thank you. Alex Brill from American Enterprise Institute. I wanted to ask about the prices associated with technology in two regards we're talking a lot about various types of subsidies whether federal government or other governments being involved either in subsidizing the financing or subsidizing the production cost or subsidizing the research costs as we look at this problem which is a long term problem if we think about subsidizing the production for the long term that I think raises questions about sustainability because the subsidies themselves are very costly. The other aspect of the pricing and the subsidy issue I appreciate a comment on is with respect to the effects of lowering the cost of energy increase the demand for energy thereby reducing the returns for reducing emissions or reducing energy consumption and so are we going the wrong way when we think about prices? I understand the political desire to lower prices rather than raise them but I just wonder what effects prices have in the innovation conversation. We have three minutes left so we'll try to gather all these things and the answers in this but of course you'll have an opportunity to interact with the speakers later so would you like to go Rich and Eric just a very quick one couldn't agree more that the idea that we're going to permanently subsidize all of these things worldwide is not a realistic approach to this. I think what we have to look at are places where we actually saw intense market driven transitions to clean energy obviously the one that's been most globally significant so the U.S.'s absolute emissions reduction over the past decade and a half is the most significant one globally that was driven by the shill gas revolution in the U.S. so you had intense series of public-private partnerships so deep innovation spending through the U.S. Department of Energy that unlocked shill gas some incentives which then ramped down but then you had a market competitive technology which happened to be clean in the form of lower carbon natural gas and that drove this and so I think we need to be looking to kind of recreate that miracle everywhere globally and so that requires this whole new suite of technologies. I agree and of course we cannot send the bill to Mars so fundamentally it will be us as energy consumers that pay for our future energy one way or the other as taxpayers or as energy consumers and we can't subsidize this forever so this is about finding ways to ensure technology development in the period until we have founded technologies being able to scale it and then the issue between the north and the south is much more of a distribution problem and I think that in the current geopolitical setting that is the difficult question about how do you attack the U.S. or European consumers to make sure that you provide cheap clean energy to the global south or to the developing economies. Minister and Murad, 30 seconds each. No, I want to make two quick points. I mentioned the policy package maybe underlining the point is actually it's a vision that how we can create the vision which unites all the different players together so that the Paris effect means that after 21, in Paris that a lot of technology is kind of born for the decarbonization of technology can we have the same kind of waves of the technology that once the vision is created nation by nation so the role of MDBs and public finance is to help the government create the credible national strategies so that they can unite to bring those different sources of the finance together with knowledge and capability so that they can assist the just transition so that's one. The pricing that we didn't talk today is actually how to price the natural capital because that is a bit of missing piece of the entire discussion when we think about the loss and damage fund that why we need to have that kind of fund to compensate the global south. I think that is a good point because the current economic system doesn't really appreciate the role of the natural capital and who is safeguarding the natural capital it's small holder farmers that the local community that the village that the forest community and water community most of them are in the global south so if the current economic system can really award economically those actions to safeguard the global commons or natural capital then that the burden of this global north and south will be much less so. Let me pick up on countries that have national strategies which show commitment, clarity and have credibility in terms of implementation will be able to leverage more resources and this is extremely important it's not easy but to keep on creating this message that climate and development come hand in hand to be very clear on your renewable strategy I'm talking about the case of Egypt we've been able to leverage and use partnerships with the private sector with other countries to try and push our agenda forward so I think there are key studies to illustrate that it is possible so that we don't lose hope completely but see some prospect and opportunity moving forward nonetheless the resources required are much more than what is available now and I keep on going to the global backdrop because the financing is becoming extremely expensive for everyone. 20 seconds I think we all understand that the demand of energy is going to continue to grow and that was the beginning of your question the challenge is that carbonized energy has been probably too cheap in the past and today what's going to happen or what has to happen is a shift between electrical, decarbonized energy and carbonized energy and I think where the governments and public sector has a big play to do is really to help us to shift that so to enable and force somehow the transition at the right pace and not to continue I would say to subsidize as you were saying at the beginning. Thank you I think what we can summarize is that there is intent there's interest and there is investment but I think we need to package it in a way put it together in a perhaps a flexible structure which can deliver outcomes thank you so much for joining us this morning