 Felly mae 25 yma yma yn ymhwng yn ymhwng yn ddiwethaf, a gwnaeth oherwydd o'r fferm bydd yma i'r parwyddiant gyda'r ysgrifennu Cymru, ac yn ymhwng yn ymhwng am ymhwng ymhwng ymwng yn ymhwng ymhwng. A'r ymhwng yw, rydyn ni'n gallu bod yn ysgrifennu ymhwng ymhwng ymhwng ymhwng ymhwyng ymhwng. Mae'r oedd y gwyneud cymdeithasol, ac mae clywed yn rheswm ar beth oedd y cymdeithasol a beth oedd y cymdeithasol yng nghylch ar y flynedd a'r ystod y byddedd yn cydweithio'r gwaith, dwy'n mor y bydd y Suzy Aelodau ac rwy'n mor y llwyr anod diwed y maesial. a mae gennym ni ddweud bod y lle cyntoddiad. Ac mae gweld i'r cwrs ar y cyfnod, ychydig i gefnodd y llwyddon yn ysgriffa meddwl o'i gwylo gweld yn gyfaradau gwirionedd yn ysgriffa meddwl. Mae oedd yn gyfraeg yn ysgriffa meddwl, ac ydych chi'n rhoi adnodd i'r hunain yn ysgriffa meddwl ysgriffa meddwl. Ych yn ysgriffa meddwl y gallwn gwirionedd yn ysgriffa meddwl yn ysgriffa meddwl yn dwyliadau. Mae'r llwyddon yn gŵr, gan y cyfnodd i'r cyfnodd, a'r cyfnodd i'r cyffredinol i'ch cyfnodd i'r cyfnodd. Rwy'n meddwl ar y dyfodol, ac yn ymddangos gwybod rhan fydd. Rwy'n meddwl i'ch ddataeth â'r cyfnodd, ac rydyn ni'n edrych yn ei wneud hynny'n ddim yn y cyfnodd a'u gwybod ar y cyfnodd ar y cyfnodd. Rydyn ni'n gydig i'ch gydig i'ch gydig. Mae'r cyfrwyng yma chi'n ddigonol i'r gael y ff�ongio, a ddim ar gael ddim yn ymuno. Felly mae'n gweithio'r cyfrwyng o'r ffordd o'r ddych chi. Rwy'n gweithio'n ddigonol i'r ffordd o'r gweithio'r gweithiol, ac oeddwn i'n gweithio'n gweld i'r gweithio. Maen nhw'n ei gweithio o'r amser Cymru Bill McKibbon sydd o'n fwrdd 350 o'r gweithio. byddwyd cyd-nw eich cyfrodd. Mae Wedyn yn y gwahog hefyd, mae'n ffordd ac yn ymddangos i'w garfwyr. Mae wedyn mewn cyd-nw wedi ddechrau yn y combineidau cyd-nw, a chyd-nw eich cyd-nw i'n gael yr analist yma i i ddechrau'n ddefnyddio ac fe fyddwn i weld beth yw 200 copias, ac erbyn nhw fyddwn i'n gweithio ac mae'r ysgletiach mwyaf a chyweru'n ei yrwstiliu. Ryn ni hefyd o'r 10 o pob cerdog lawer o 200 copias a eich y byddwch o unigwyd am enrichment yma ar gyfer y gweithwyr yn Gweithio'r180 yw ymlaen. Daeth y dyfodol yn ei bwysig, ac ydy hefyd yn bwysig ymwn i bob ei ymarwarwch, ac rhawn i'n gwneud, yn ffaluad i gael ymlaen cryffau ar gyfer golygu, ac mae'n arnynt wedi cael ei ddweud ond y gweithio, ac rhefn o'n iawn. Rwy'n fyddheir, rydyn ni wedi bod dweud yn Yn Ysgrif iawn ar gyfer y mewn'r ymddredig, y gallwch, dwi'n fyddeithas holl... ...wyddeithas a'i'r problemau sydd y system yn cael y cyflwy, a iawn gweld y ffordd i'ch eich gael ar gyfer y mae'r fynd amlwg, sydd y mae ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd neu yw rhan o'r ffordd, a dwi'n fforddol sydd yn cael y cyflwy, mae'n gweithio'r problemau sydd o'r ffordd i'r ffordd mynd y ffordd, mae yna gweithio'r problemau. Byddwn yn cael ei wneud, ond byddwn yn ffordd yn gweithio i wneud is to get away from this concept of a bubble now and also be clear the bubble is not a financial bubble it is a carbon bubble there's more fossil fuels finance and we can burn to stay below two degrees but it um it created all these campaigns were bubbles so I just come back from New York and the campaigners I got sent this picture um and there are lots of campaigners they kicked a huge carbon bubble down wall street and it burst literally on the horns of the of the of the bull in in wall street and uh and so really the last the debate of the last year and a half has just been this non-stop series of headlines about universities and faith groups divesting firstly from coal but also from oil and I was in the room when the Rockefellers announced that they were divesting from one car part of the Rockefeller family was divesting from the from from the coal and the oiling and gas industry and um the the um the debate the discussion has really just developed its own momentum um so lots of news lots of coverage um and even today just reading the papers today I'm picking up uh people reacting to the debate about divestment but also reacting to the challenges faced by the fossil fuel industry and this again looking at this paradox as to why we why is it every day markets are delivering tens of billions of dollars on a weekly basis to expand the fossil fuel industry why why is that happening when we actually should be going off in the other direction um so glance at carbon tracker um one of the things I decided to do is to uh is to recruit the people that know the oil and coal and gas industry sometimes better than the executives of the companies themselves which is the wall streets and the city of london's oil and gas analysts so um the people that've come into my team have been people who've spent the last 20 30 years on the other side of the table with management on a broad range of oil and gas companies so if a coal company comes in we're going to say well we're going to go and take a deep dive into the numbers guys and um the chats I work with put their hands up and say yeah we're going to go down there with you and we're going to get we're going to get into the detail of the numbers so when we look at the oil and coal industry in particular and say it can't all be burned um it isn't as simple as it isn't as simple as that it's really it's a question of the economics some companies will win some companies will lose and the number work is really about working at winners and losers in a climate carbon constrained world so we produced these series of reports the first one was is there a problem which is calling the phrase a carbon bubble the second looked at what we call stranded assets or unburnable reserves waste the capital there's paradox of this well let's get the real numbers out the IEA says that to 2030 23 trillion dollars will go in expanding the fossil fuel industry which is beginning to look like a large number so what we wanted to do was really look at the annual capex company by company oilfield by oilfield mine by mine and really get into the detail of that and then follow that up with what we coined the phrase a carbon cost curve which plots every oil project in the world against the cost curve and looked at cost of production just to get into the numbers let's go to the carbon bubble concept I'm sure most of you will be familiar with the concept of the carbon budget that's where we decided to start which is carbon dioxide which about 43% of annual global emissions will come from the burning and combustion of fossil fuels and particularly coal and it stays in the atmosphere for 200 years and they're the cumulus of emissions since 1750 and obviously the last 100 years the last 50 years have been the most important and since since the agreement in 1992 we've seen global emissions actually accelerate not decelerate and as it stays as a carbon stays in the atmosphere a concept of a budget how much you can you continue to burn how much can you release knowing that the atmosphere and we say the atmosphere actually what I probably really mean is the oceans because if the oceans have been absorbing the carbon dioxide the atmosphere will observe the carbon dioxide when the oceans are full which is in the concept which sounds very scientific but I think it's the simplest way of explaining it and that's when we're probably seeing and I say probably because there's a huge uncertainty on all of this I'm not a scientist I started off as an economist and we don't even I mean the economists don't understand the science well actually the scientists don't understand the economics and probably what we're trying to do with carbon track is bring those two disciplines together so we have ranges of probability of how much carbon dioxide principally can and there are other global warming gases can we release before we got ourselves into real problems so let's start off on the right hand side um this word reserves so if any of you who've come from the fossil fuel industry know that the word reserves is very tricky it has a very legal definition and when we talk about reserves I want to say we I mean citizens talk about reserves what they mean is all that stuff underground that's not the legal definition of reserve what that is is resources but the public wouldn't say resources so just remind ourselves about definitions but when we say reserves what we mean is is all the identified fossil fuels which is economically potentially economically recoverable that could be burned it's not all fossil fuels are underground it's not the methane's and hydrates are locked up in Siberia it's pretty much it's not the the methane that's locked under the oceans under high pressure it's uh it's stuff which has been identified which if you wanted to have a go you could extract and that's to around 2800 and gigatons of of CO2 and then the IPCC gives ranges of probability of how much could you burn to stay within two degrees of warming whether you want a 66 66 probability 80 probability or 50 probability we're taking 80 probability of avoiding two degrees with the two degrees being what the scientists tell us is the upper limit whilst pragmatists will say we're going to three two degrees is the upper limit and non-CO2 forcing is a curious phrase but one you may be familiar with it just refers to non-CO2 global warming gases and the ability to restrain those principally methane emissions could allow you a higher emissions of CO2 so we're looking at ranges of CO2 and probability so this is um this is where the concept of the bubble comes from I just explain what this shows you um having looked at company by company looking at what they state their reserves are and what their resources are there's 1541 gigatons of embedded CO2 in the resources of the world's top 200 publicly traded coal oil and gas companies the um the proven reserves i the ones which have booked which have got a 90 probability of recovery is 762 gigatons um now your budget to two degrees varies it's somewhere between 700 and 1000 gigatons depending on what assumptions you make now we've allocated a share of the carbon budget and why you have to do that is not all oil and gas and coal is owned by public corporations it's owned by governments and it's owned by private citizens and we've allocated a nominal share of that budget 225 gigatons and as you can see that's the safe share uh the green doesn't fit into the red and that gives you your contradiction that's that's the problem that we have is the green um or rather the red doesn't fit into the green and there there we have the central paradox which is is that the um blue is expanding out to fit what we can identify but we know it's way beyond the climate limits so um when you do it stock exchange by stock exchange um company by company you can see markets at risk and there's two critical well there's actually three critical markets but i'm going to ignore russia for the moment because it's kind of out on its own there's two critical markets there one is new york and one is london um if you're an investor if you're a corporation if you're a government there's two markets with the problem and and actually the next slide is far more important than this slide it's where we're going to that's important not where we are now the blue is is is oil um the lighter colour is the is is the gas and the gray is coal what actually happens is london becomes the world's financial centre for coal in terms of what we understand we've looked at the capex plans of all the coal companies and what happens in london is london bets the future on coal becomes the coal centre of the world shanghai and and and other markets um johannesburg and and sydney well we would expect them because they're quite fossil they're quite resource dependent economies particularly south africa and australia but they really go really go for coal but london's the odd one london is really going to be chucking much of the banking system and much of the equity markets as given gel and bp and and glen core are such big parts of the fitsy 100 the fitsy 50 every dollar every euro going in an ordinary citizens pension fund 20 20% of that will probably go probably 30% of that go will go automatically into the fossil fuel sector as if as if it has a rosy future because that's the other thing about markets is they don't always behave well of course we know they don't behave rationally so that's what markets are doing this slide here just sort of summarises it again the the 900 which is the carbon budget to two degrees is is in the green um the three degrees budget is is is the 1200 and total fossil fuel reserves is 2680 gigaton so and then the future total resources everything that you can really go for and that really is again just another way of demonstrating why we have a problem it is a fossil fuel industry problem it's a banking problem it's an equity market problem if you're an investor in these companies because you've got business models that don't work which you've got analysts you've got regulators acting you've got investment advisors acting as if um the future would just be a straightforward repeat of the past and this contradiction isn't an issue for the strategies of these companies and I think probably this is why carbon tracker is has stirred things up a little bit because it just reveals what a what a what a yeah that includes state owned companies in fact that's i'll come into that the split in a minute so um there are scenarios but there's historical emissions there's the pathways that we've got we're currently based on current emissions we're on a pathway towards three to five degrees of warming but um we need to stabilise and and I look at these scenarios because the IEA and the IPCC have different scenarios for for projected demand they've got well the key one is is well you've got the business as usual scenario which is the one that the oil companies default back to when they're right to their shareholders about climate risk but we then have the new policies scenario which I think from the IEA which is much more important which shows demand levelling out and there I think you've got a regulatory issue for for people who regulate financial markets as to what guidance is given to companies and how they report on new types of risk so um let's have a look at emissions trajectory is this is the IPC is in the blue line you've got the IEA current policies scenario in the grey which is a second line down and then you've got the IEA 450 scenario which is what how demand for fossil fuels will have to level out and emissions will have to level out to achieve a 450 parts per million or roughly a two degrees thereabouts of warming and here's a timeline I like to work to timelines based on emissions and there's a critical timeline 2031 to 2045 when we actually go beyond the emissions go beyond the chance of of going back from two degrees or indeed three degrees and 2031 if you're an actuary I like actuaries and the actuaries in the audience no you've got to spend more time with actuaries guys and ladies because actually the actuaries know a lot more about risk probability scenarios and traditional investors because they're doing asset liability modelling and the asset liability modelling tries to model somebody who's aged 20 today as to what assets you need to invest in for when they're 65 or 70 when they take retirement or 70 now that we can't retire at 60 anymore and they look at 50 year scenarios and they look at the mix of investments you've got to own in your pension fund to secure a particular investment outcome and when you look at 2031 to 2045 and we're in 2014 close to 2015 what we've got here is changes to the parameters which look like the kinds of timelines that actuaries are happy with and what we know from what I'm happy with them because we did a presentation to the Institute of actuaries where we had hundreds of actuaries come out who love this stuff because it because people can start talking about 50 years which is how actuaries like to work but companies don't like to work on 50 year basis government certainly don't neither do investors but when we start to look at that those timelines suddenly become important because what we're doing is we're investing to protect people's benefits or retirement benefits whilst killing the planet at the same time and that's the central that's the central paradox is we have this duty to maximize welfare to people that members of pension schemes but one thing we're not allowed to ask if you're an investor is what the world will look like in 20 years time and actually what types of investment decisions do we make that produce the outcomes that we want and that's why I like those timelines it tells us we have an immediate problem now if you go into the investment planning horizons of large companies and they have hundreds of people at Shell and BP that just do planning in the future and scenarios which is which is great is investment plans where you're looking at 10 to 15 20 years before projects come on stream and breaking through two degrees within that time period makes a lot of the investment planning it renders it to degree points so the numbers um Oxfam had produced today a very good report when I say it's good it's it's a relatively speaking layman's introduction to the concept and they use our numbers in it where where Oxfam explained some of these contradictions is around four trillion of equities represented by investments in the world's largest fossil fuel companies companies then pay invest around 670 closer to 730 billion in capex the figure is actually greater than that number because we're only looking at listed companies and to develop reserves and in return they give back to investors profits which then get paid out to service debt and pay dividends and that's the cycle which people have been on for a long long time and that's the cycle which the incumbency represented by big coal and oil wishes to to continue unchallenged so the situation we know financial markets can be structurally flawed and inadequate response to climate change is one of those failings but the default assumption by every oil, coal and gas analyst is all that resources is out there to get hold of and it's all going to get burnt that's the default assumption of every cell side oil and gas and mining analysts that I've met it's to presum all the models assume the traditional IEA business as usual growth forever and they assume that there's as much economically recoverable oil sometimes at the same price that is 20 years ago that we know that's not true and people are beginning to realise that and it's this default assumption that has to be challenged because you cannot rely on that and if they were to change their models i.e. that we're going to decline in people demand for coal then this would change the valuations for these coal and oil companies now coal is ready off as we know 70% of the listed coal companies have had that's the loss of value some of it is not as much as 90% of loss of value of these coal companies and oil is struggling as well but it could the path of business as usual could lead to what we call stranded assets which is investing in an asset like a mine or an oil rig or a railroad that freights coal or oil that could be left economically unusable because the markets have changed i'm going to move on from this to say okay well let's accept that but actually um the boards of the oil companies in particular are saying it's not my oil that's going to get stranded it's theirs and everyone plays this game it's not my investors are going to suffer it's theirs and um and this can only go on for for so long and so we thought well actually what we have to do is it's going to be based on the economics if you produce oil of a hundred dollars a barrel on oils at eighty dollars a barrel now and your production cost is is a hundred uh then in the markets in declining markets you're not going to win if all of your projects have a break even price above a particular price and the same with coal so what by using that just a very simple observation we can actually split oil coal and gas companies including state owned ones into two groups those with um cost of production above a particular price and those that will win because they've got very low cost of production and who who wins was um governments and companies where they own assets at cost you know cost of production of twenty dollars a barrel for example i'm just to pick that out will win and if you got it at a hundred dollars now the the things to be concerned about if you're an investor is it's the publicly traded corporations that seem to have most of the high cost projects and governments have been very smart they've been selling off the licenses for the high cost stuff to to investors and the governments have been hanging on to the cheap and valuable stuff themselves for various reasons so we partnered I mentioned there are analysts so working in the team we have Barclays mining analysts we have the ex-head of HSBC's global oil practice we have Deutsche banks and CD Group's ex-head of research and we developed a partnership with one of them to do a cost curve analysis um so here the takeaways which are highlighted here um we stress test capex against a notional carbon budget is really the key one there and it's projects needing a break even um of 95 dollars a barrel market price for the most vulnerable and the low carbon demand scenario with governments moving towards constraining the sale or combustion of fossil fuels to two degrees so um we can split there's a global supply which is on the left and then there's national companies private companies and then we would call the oil majors which are the you know your exons and bps your shells and what we find on the right is a as a percentage share of total potential production private companies by which we mean publicly listed companies have a very large share but so do national oil companies and um a lot of those private companies those listed companies get left with um potentially stranded assets so this is what i mean about going into the detail and i'll probably have to skip over it just to give the the basics but here's here's just the classic break equilibrium equilibrium economics where you have a supply of 360 gigatons which is on the bottom which is marked in the red which is the available supply of oil to each share of a remaining carbon budget to two degrees so of 900 gigatons of co2 we just allocate 360 gigatons of co2 to the oil industry and we've mapped we we bought the right set energy database we're an NGO funded by charities but we have we've blown easily we'll blow easily half a million on buying commercial databases um and employing people to read the oil industry's databases and we've bought the wood mat database as well to do coal and that wasn't cheap either so we've had to look at 8000 oil projects and hundreds of coal projects as well to map them against this cost curve and you'll find a very high cluster of projects on the top right hand of this of the the cost curve they're the ones that are going to be in the problem and obviously there are a lot of of oil companies in the bottom right bottom left hand quadrant which is there's no such thing as a safe place if you're in the fossil fuel industry but if you are want to be if you're below that break even price of 75 to 80 dollars that's where the carbon budget so what we're saying is is is for markets to clear and not take us above two degrees only companies and governments that own projects below the 75 to 80 dollars a break even price will win and if you've got projects in your portfolio as a diversified oil company which and which are above that then you've got a problem and this is where you'll find the literature coming out every day in the wall street journal in the final times is what you're seeing there is most oil companies with a with their new portfolios going into tar sands ultra deep oil are shifting way above that and there there we have capital at risk there we have the potential threat of um stranded assets so what we then did is we broke it down into on the left hand side is cost of production then we looked at conventional and then arctic um deep water conventional then ultra deep water conventional and then we looked at how much capital is going to be invested in projects based around different costs of production and then we did the same for shale oil um extra heavy oil and tight liquid um and you're seeing how much capital is being expended so capex by dollars by break even oil price going out to 2050 um how much of it requires a price above 150 dollars a barrel to make money um and there's that key number down there um you've um you've got oil at 80 dollars a barrel today and just look at how much a future capex expects prices to be above that so um with that look at the provinces with the highest um cost potential production and then we go into it company by company if you've got download the whole report on our cost goes here and as I said the highlights are here you can go much more into the numbers and we do it company by company so along the top we've looked at conventionals arctic shale extra heavy tight liquids we then look at their future capex which is on the column on the right so petrol brass will spend over 450 billion dollars um out to 2025 on capex and then we look at how much of that capex is at risk which gives you which is the next column on on the far um right hand side and then we look at it which which sectors are going going for so um quite a few are going for ultra deep water um a number obviously going for oil sands so what we're trying to do here is let's assume you're a uh buy side analyst you work for government science wealth management the way we want this tool to be used is to challenge the boards of companies on their capex strategies while you're deploying shareholder funds um and it's not in consequential amounts on projects which don't recover the costs of capital and also have no place in the two degrees world so what we're really doing is we're using classic financial arguments to challenge boards and so we wrote to um the top 15 of the world's largest oil companies and coal companies about their capex plans and um our allies in america filed shareholder resolutions against exxon and bp probably did you have you seen the fame infamous shall i say i don't know famous letters from shell and exxon and to tau where essentially they write to their shareholders and say we're going to burn it all we're going to burn it all and there um there we have the i think the sober realisation of the direction these companies want to take the financial markets and their their investors and so we're sort of saying well actually let's get into the detail a little bit so um let's take a uh just a snapshot of what's happening um and i don't think any of this is really new the green green line um shows the price of oil going on to 2013 we know that um uh oil has actually dropped down to 80 but when this was it was written what this shows is return on capital employed so really what should be happening is in a in a period of high oil prices the return on capital employed for a typical oil company should be going up they should be making super profits actually what's been happening is a return on capital employees been going down and there's a bunch of reasons for that mostly the costs of getting the stuff out is just has become astronomical cost of hiring rigs engineers um the steel work the cement work involved um just make it uneconomic now with oil down you've got a problem there's a number of oil companies with a serious problem now here's one of the dirty little secrets of the global oil institute today um every pension fund and charity that has the big oil in their portfolio says well we've got to keep it for the dividends we've got to keep it for the dividends guys there's a strong reason the dirty secret is that the oil industry has been funding its dividends out of bank borrowings out of debt it's not been funding out of free cash flow and profits it's been funding out of debt and the banks have been looking at this going well okay we understand the oil industry it's been around for you know 800 years we the past is always repeated in the future as we know or do we and so of course it's safe to continue to fund dividends using bank debt and actually i think there's a chicken coming ready to come home to roost at some point so um capex has been going up so um we know that the amount of money being invested to find more oil in difficult areas and we know that we've been getting more difficult as people go into the Arctic and so on has been going up that's the red line but actually production's been going down in blue i don't think we have a supply side problem there's no shortage of fossil fuels we have a demand problem but actually the supply challenge is how is it possible to be to to make investing in the sector economic when you've got production declining whilst capex is going up so this is um three of the big ones chevron raw dot shell and exon and again a very similar picture the orange shows capex going up and the blue shows production coming down or just steady so we've got an industry that's facing some significant challenges so let's get on to valuation um does it really matter does it really matter and um is it the case that these companies are overvalued is it the case that um the fossil fuel sector which will have to go through a rapid transition is um going to be um uh facing its own crisis and a lot of it comes down to how you value a model of the companies and what this tries to show you is what percentage this was by HSBC and what percentage of today's value of say big shallow or exon is based around revenues going out five five five years or 10 years and what they what they discover is around 60% of the value of a company that's listed in this sector is made up out of um revenues going out 10 years and beyond so i i use this slide to argue the case that actually whilst some would say that there is no real crisis in the industry i would say that the transition to a low carbon economy if we get this wrong and if we continue to head towards this 23 trillion a capex which is what's forecast then there's going to be potentially some significant valuation stress problems faced by the sector so we've had this debate with the old majors so um exon wrote their famous letter 20 page letter we responded with a 40 page response going through all their projects pointing out whilst whilst where they were diluting shareholder funds and return on capital by deploying to to new investments and then we did the same with shell so shell tried to dismiss there's no carbon bubble is what they keep exactly shell has recently said um and so we've responded with an in-depth analysis of all their key projects all their key capex you can download that off carbon trackers website um shell haven't responded to our letter um but we know a bunch of shareholders have been to see them to really quite challenge them um this um so the company's view of future energy demand is is they see fossil fuels will be two thirds to three quarters of all energy supplied in the next 30 40 years is what shell and exon have said and because of that we have no alternative um but to supply energy and they also um conflate energy with oil as well whereas I would probably say coal is a better representative for energy than oil and the limited to transportation fuels as well so our view on it that there'll be slow growth in the asian markets particularly china we're going to see a rapid transition because of transport efficiency um I think the projected take up of electric cars has been underestimated air pollution controls is going to hit the fossil fuel industry particularly coal faster than anticipated and subsidies a lot of people attack the subsidies the renewable energy industry but the biggest subsidies as we know represented by hundreds of billions is actually to subsidize coal oil and gas um and we see those subsidies going out in in economies like indonesia and in egypt and nigeria and so on um and the rapid substitution towards solar um and also um the switch this the switch trade between coal and gas is going to present a whole series of challenges okay so i'm going to conclude with just one or two slides here um what are we really trying to say here what we're trying to say here is the fossil fuel industry has to go through rapid transition for us to have any chance of achieving two degrees targets and that transition will have to start with the people that own those companies accepting the scale and the speed of the transition so who owns these companies we're not the boards of the companies the companies are not owned by governments either they're owned by ordinary citizens and what we're seeing even though i'm not been a back of the divestment movement what we've seen is a huge mobilization of citizens who a don't want to see their own funds invested in something that could potentially damage their children's future um but b they're actually sort of saying this is a place to draw to draw a line in the sand and that they're actually it's through the behaviour of private corporations um ones that they own through their pension funds that they feel that they can make an intervention not through the ballot box so our position here as carbon tracker is to supply companies and owners of companies with data and just to challenge the capex plans why deploy hundreds of billions in projects that don't make sense why have negative IRR capex projects which is where we where we've got to now that where there's no return to shareholders and start to engage with companies on projects where you've got particularly all the projects where they anticipate above $95 break-even price so this is a really an engagement strategy for for owners and i'm going to leave on this slide i haven't tackled the coal industry i could have done but haven't done for time reasons um there's a company called the Baldwin steam locomotive company was one of the most important companies in the u.s. markets in the 1920s and 1930s it was a giant and they employed hundreds of people researching more efficient steam engines and they have research teams and they said that steam was going to be the dominant form of transport well into the 1980s and of course they hadn't understood that Ford and General Motors were just around the corner to nick market share and Kodak was the same Kodak was investing in more efficient Kodak film they hadn't seen digital and the same story across history whether it's the Olivetti's or blockbuster videos competing against Netflix and here's the question you know which is the next one which which is the next sector and i would i'll put it to you today that the next sector coming up is the one to go first is going to be coal and an oil is going to really struggle to make money in coming years with changing markets and all will also have to face an uncertain future