 I welcome you to the second day and I hand immediately over to Philip Rode. He is heading the next panel. Philip, it's you. Thank you, Wolfgang. Welcome to our first session of our second day here. My name is Philip Rode and I'm going to co-chair this session with my colleague, Sibel César, who is the Regional Director of the Regional Environment Center. Before I pass on to her, I'd like to make a few comments on how the session is going to work and in a bit how it builds on what we have heard yesterday. Climate change is a term that we have probably engaged with yesterday indirectly about four times, but there are two references in particular I'd like to highlight. The first came from Kamal Dervish and he said that his growth predictions, which he showed at the very end of his presentation, are very likely if you were to take just purely an economic perspective, but is highly dependent on what's going to happen to climate change. So there was the first big warning. The second reference I wanted to refer to is Saskia Sassen, who asked the question about what is bigger than the neoliberal project and he clearly indicated that the climate change issue seems to fall into that category. When we come to cities and climate change, I think the narrative is relatively established that the immediate responses is the city, the problem, or the solution. And I think this session is very much about the second part. It is about the city as a solution. Of course we know that today's development and therefore also today's urban development is highly unsustainable and that needs to change, but particularly with increasing affluence, there's a unique opportunity in cities to de-link high resource consumption from improved quality of life and higher living standards. That's really important to take on board right from the beginning. The statistics here are things like London or the average Londoner producing 40% less CO2 than the average British person, although arguably the same quality of life, if not even higher. Or even yesterday we heard about Istanbul's pattern of urbanization being very low resource intense. So that was, I think, a very positive perspective. Now on top of that, cities are incredibly progressive environments. They are the drivers of change and it is precisely at that end that politicians need to buy into the political capabilities of cities. Now the session you'll look at, the agenda, you'll realize that all our speakers take the transport angle to the climate change view. Let me just highlight that transport in itself is not the single biggest contributor to CO2 globally as well as within cities. Typically it's argued that it's probably around 30% and yes the built environment buildings are even more significant. We nevertheless chose to focus on transport today for several reasons. The first one is that transport, urban transport, again and again ranks in almost all the cities we have worked in as among the top three concerns for both local residents as well as for political leadership. That is a very consistent picture across the world. The second issue is that residents have a particular strong opinion about transport strategies. It's almost fair to say that everyone who lives in a city feels like and able to be a transport expert. I think that has a particular issue and allows us to have a very engaged debate with the general public about transport projects. Transport also combines uniquely the emissions agenda with a spatial agenda. Just think of the emissions coming from the automobile and at the same time the spatial consumption of the automobile when moving in our cities. Transport infrastructure is probably also among the strongest policy tools to determine the planning of our city. They are probably an ideal instrument for politicians to engage with a long-term perspective what's going to happen to a place much more than any master plan can possibly deliver. And the last point I want to make why transport matters so much it's a highly contested field and it's very controversial. Just think about what happened in relation to the recovery packages where we're trying to rescue a traditional automobile industry which almost runs against most of our progressive urban objective of reducing automobile dependency. And we yesterday heard that even in the case of Turkey this country industrialized based on the automotive industry. So those things we really need to take into consideration. Let me finish with this abstract reference what the world is now about to agree hopefully which is to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius which is resulting into an analogy in the CO2 reduction standards of about 50% globally by 2050 and 80% for the developed world reduction by 2050. It's a very abstract number and I think collectively we don't really know what that means in terms of painting a picture of a future of how we run our lives on the ground. I want to just give you a flavor of what it could mean and quote a recent German study that was done for the context of Germany by WWF looking at a tool of back casting literally projecting seeing the target in 2050 understanding what's possible. To achieve the target of 80% CO2 reduction by 2050 in Germany the country would have to reduce the kilometers traveled by private vehicles by 30%. That's a massive reduction and what I'm quoting here is the politically most feasible option. Electric vehicle kilometers will have to increase to 50% by 2050 of all kilometers traveled by private cars. Germany will have to double its rail network capacity and that in 40 years and it will have to increase public transport by 25% already by 2030. With those numbers I'll hand over to Sybel to introduce our speakers. Dear panelists, dear discussants and dear participants it's a pleasure to be here as a co-chair together with Philip Rhodes. I would like to say a few words about climate change and transport. We probably all know that cities are highly vulnerable to impacts of climate change. Next month there's going to be the conference of parties of the climate change convention and the 15th COP. It's a very, very critical stage for us as especially people working in the climate change profession because it's essential, it's going to be perhaps the most significant event defining how the world economy is going to develop post-2012. Therefore we currently are working together with many organizations that are trying to gather cities in taking actions to prevent climate change. Of course we don't only work in transportation, we work in increasing energy efficiency, increasing the percentage of renewables, trying to increase green procurement, urban planning, changing consumer behavior. There are many areas we have to work in, not only transportation. However, when it comes to CO2G emissions transportation is critical and urban areas. Urban areas generate two thirds of CO2 emissions globally. And it's expected that according to OECD by 2050 there's going to be a 120% increase of global transport emissions. This is tremendous. Therefore we have to take action. When we look at we have, Philip has shared some global rates with us. We as REC in Turkey have conducted some studies on the impact of transportation to CO2 emissions. Now when we look at the overall impact we estimate of course these are always debatable the numbers, but we estimate 14% of GHG emissions that are arising from transportation. When we look at the period of 1990 to 2004 we see 74% of emissions in Turkey. We estimated that approximately 57% generate from transportation, so it's lower than the average increase. There can be many reasons behind this which we can discuss perhaps. However, when we look at the increase of air emissions caused by air transportation it is 400%. Therefore that is an area that must be tackled in the immediate near future. So we will have many, we will have a lot of time to discuss the impacts of climate change and transportation. Thank you.