 Thank you very much for the kind invitation. When you accept a title like this, you think, oh, that will be nice. And then you start thinking, is this title really? Can I meet up with this? First I saw water, and I decided, no, let's make it wash. Because I'm better into sanitation, perhaps, than my medical background. And then I thought it was a little megalomaniac wash as a the driving force. So I decided to be a little modest and say, ah, driving force. And let's compare it with the other driving forces. And then for development and health benefit was a little too vague for me. I wanted to narrow it. So let's go for the big thing, ending extreme poverty, which is just one of the tasks you are dealing with. Because water and sanitation issues are indeed important throughout all economic spectrums. But this is what I will try to cover. And I will start talking about people. To do this, I divided the world into four regions here, America, Africa, and for Europe to have any chance, I had to merge it with Turkey and Russia there. And then Asia is here. I made the Australians Asians. They had to get used to it, you know? So that's the world. And we are 7 billion people. Where do they live? One in America, one in Europe, one in Africa, and four in Asia. This is my most important message, the pin code of the world, 1114. And we have found that this is a sort of a macro level where we often don't get it right. You may know certain countries you work with and you know the whole world. But this is important to remember. Most people live in Asia today. But in 2050, this will change. No more people in Europe, a little more just in America doesn't change much. There will be 1 billion more in Asia. And by that, the fast population growth in Asia is over. And by 2050 already, twice as many people in Africa. And before the fast population growth will be over by the end of this century, it may continue to grow a little by the end of this century or even have started to decrease. But before that, there will most probably be 2 billion more in Africa. This is the world we are aiming to. More or less, plus minus 1 to 2 billion. An important thing here to remember that if we divide this in North and South, we get the concept which I used to call the old West. That will be less than 10% of the world population. It was 30, 40% of the world population when I was young. It has changed like that. 80% of the world population will be living in Asia and Africa. The Indian Ocean will be the main sea of trade and the other parts of the Pacific linking to that. And Atlantic Ocean will be backwaters. This image is the one that the CEOs of the major international company likes most. They asked me for copies for this to distribute to the entire management. Because this is what we have to see. They say, my staff think that globalization is done. It hasn't even started. It hasn't even started. Because I will show you how economy will follow up on this. But first, can we trust these numbers? They come from United Nations Population Division. They made their first forecast in 1958 and they said world population will grow like this. It will be more than 6 billion by the year 2000. And if you read the media at that time, they said they are stupid. Everyone know there can't be 1.3 billion people in India. And now we know the answer. Here's the answer. Respect for demography. They were 3% wrong on a 42-year prediction. Have you ever heard an economist making that? Or a medical expert for that sake? Did we tell you in advance that Ebola was going to come like this? Did we tell you in advance about HIV? No, we are just embarrassed that we don't understand what epidemics will come. And so many disciplines have difficulties forecasting. The demographers are quite good at it. And let me put one question to you here. This is how they are forecasting the number of children. When I was born, 1948, there were less than 1 billion children, 0 to 15 years old, then it increased to almost 2 billion now by the turn of the century. One of these lines come from the fine group of demographers at the United Nations. The other two I made up. They are pure fantasy, the other two. It's just to make a quiz for you. Do they say like the number of children will more or less continue to grow like this and we will have 4 billion children by the end of the century? Or do they say, no, no, it will slow down, there will be 3 billion? Or do they say, no, the number of children will not increase? Can I have a vote of hand this early morning? How many think that this is the true projection? How many think it's this one? And how many think it's this one? You're a little better than average. It's also an early morning today. This is what the Swedish population said. Gapminder Foundation are now measuring the impact of our work. We have to measure the true impact. Do we have quality in our education? Do people know it? So we do web-based service with the finest companies and here is Britain, this is United States, you know? And you had more or less, I estimated about 20, 22% you had here and this is the right answer. The number of children have stopped increasing in the world. It's the biggest event in the history of mankind that was ever completely missed by media and by academia. And it's quite interesting because it's really a big thing when this happens and I will show you this now more in detail and you didn't know it, you know? That's strange. Because had I gone to the zoo and asked the ships, they would score 33%. So you didn't even reach random. And what does it mean when entire populations in highly educated countries score one third of random, one third of ships? It means that they're preconceived ideas. This is the main problem teaching about the world. My colleague with professor in stem cell research has an easy life. No one knows anything about stem cells. So when you start explaining, it's a blank paper and you can start from scratch. I have to work erasing, erasing, erasing. And then I can put something new. But often when I put something new, the old slips in underneath and stays. So let's look at the next here. Why has this happened? Because the babies born per woman in the world has changed. In Europe it changed like this. It fell quite early, but not so fast. It's now below two children per woman down here. In America it came just a little after, but there was a baby boom after the Second World War, both in North and South America. In Asia, everyone was scared, especially Paul Erlich, he wrote the population bomb, but then it fell like that. And today there are two children per woman on earth. 2.2 in Asia. In India it's 2.5. In China 1.6. And Africa, is Africa changing anything? Yes it is. And most probably Africa fertility was even higher than six, a part of modern time. And everyone knows that this is more or less what will happen. There are just two things we are debating. One is how fast will Africa come down? Will they come down like this? A faster education of extreme poverty, provisional water and sanitation, better health contraceptives, economic growth. They will come down faster. Or the other thing we don't know. Where will population end up? How many children? Will they be like Germany 1.6 or like Sweden 2.0? It's very different in different countries. Japan is 1.3, Taiwan is 1.2. Mind you, Taiwan, who doesn't have a one child policy and less children per woman than China that has a one child policy. It's strange isn't it? The conclusion is easy. The Communist Party is not so powerful in the bedroom. Why do they know this? Well, the old balance 200 years back, 1,000 years back, 2,000 years back, human societies on average, two parents had six children and four tragically died before growing up to become parents themselves. Two survived and the world population grow very, very slowly. From the start of agriculture, seven, 8,000 years ago we were roughly 10 million people like Sweden today. Imagine a world with only Swedes. And then from there, with agriculture and thousands of years, we came up to 1 billion, 1 billion here. Now came industrial revolution. And you know what happened. Industrial produced soap. Yon Snow, cause of cholera, better sanitation, better food, and what happens was that more children survived. And thus we had the exponential growth and then we became seven billion. And 25% of the Swedes went to Minnesota. And that's, now there are two problems with this curve. There are two problems with this curve. First it's a deep moral issue and then it's a mathematical issue. The moral issue is that some people still call it a population explosion. That originated from 1968 when Paul and Anna Erlich book was published and the publisher wanted it to be called Population Bomb. Because that attracted the psyche at that time. America had the nuclear bomb, Asia had the children. And they gave birth to many children that were to become communists. And now this was truly, this was the whole concept behind it. It was sort of scary how many they were and how many they were becoming. That means when you say population explosion, you tell other people that their children are terrorist bomb. Their love children. Don't do that. Stop it. It's derogative, it's unintellectual. We can say fast population growth. We don't have to put these value judgment in it. We must understand it. And I can tell you that many of my friends and scholars across the world living in countries with higher fertility rate, they just hate that expression. So don't do it. Let's be neutral and let's be fact-based when we discuss. The other problem is exponential growth. Everyone say, oh, it's growing exponentially. It's not at all. It's a straight line since 1968. Can you see? What does that mean? It means that the interest rate is falling. The maximum growth rate of the world population was 1968. It was growing with 2.1% it's been falling ever since. That's why we have a straight line. And we know more or less what will happen in the future. We know that this will not happen. It will be like this because we have almost reached the new balance. The new balance where the parents in the bedroom decide how many children they should have with what interval and they decide the number according to what they are able to give to the children of a good life, of a good upbringing. We are almost there. You saw the world is down to 2.5 children per woman. I will show you a graph of that. Each bubble is a country. Size of the bubble is the population. This is China. This is India. And red, Asia, green America, blue Africa, and yellow Europe. Here, number of babies per woman. Small families, large families. Over there, child mortality. Low child mortality, 50,000. High child mortality, 350,000. Every third child dying, one in 20 children dying down there. 1963, 50 years ago, the world consisted of two types of countries. Developed countries, small families, low mortality. Developing countries, large family, high, very high child mortality. How has it changed? I will start the world. And you can see how it runs year by year from this situation up to today. And keep especially an eye on China. Here we go. Ready, steady, go. It falls down child mortality and family planning starts in China. Can you see here they're coming? They're coming, they're rushing over. But this is Brazil. And this is Mexico. They don't care about the church. They put on the condom and they decrease the family size here. And here comes Indonesia. Here comes India is coming here. And look at Africa. This is Ethiopia, coming very fast. Completely new world. You saw how the world changed. Today, 2.5 is the average. The division into developing and developed countries is gone. It just remains as a tattoo in the head. We have countries in all of them. Unfortunately, we still have countries in deep poverty and civil conflict. This is Afghanistan. Sorry, this is Congo. This is Afghanistan. All these are countries who are going through severe strides. Other countries are more successful. Look, Africa goes from here up to there, the blue. And it's very important to realize that some are now on a very, very low level down here. Now, let me go back and tell you a little about the concept. Last week on Thursday, this article was published in Science by the fine group of demographers at UN Population Division. It got an unfortunate title because it evoked that feeling of population bomb. What they really published was this. Media throughout the world, including BBC, said that this was a new graph. It was not. It was the same line that was published 13th of June last year, World Population Prospect 2012. What they did now was more advanced definition of the uncertainty. And we will be. We are 7 billion now. This is more or less how we will end up on 12 billion. And if you can see, yes, it is still increasing a little. It's almost flat. It's going like this. And the growth rate of the world population has fallen like this. 2.1%. Today, 1.1%. In just about 35 years, it will be 0.5%. It's really falling now the growth rate. Then 0.25%. And 0.11%. And then yet, the many media in Europe and North America write about an explosive population growth. I never called my bank interest 0.11% as explosive. It's strange how this sticks. We have to take away this. It even has a tendency of structural racism in this. We have to think objectively about it. Now, let me show you also how countries differ within. This is Ethiopia, the fantastic success of Ethiopia. Well, success. They are on their way, lowering child mortality, making access to contraceptive, making access to education for women. But if I split Ethiopia into its provinces, it's like this. Addis Ababa is in one end. And Somali region is in the other end. Now, this is the population composition of the world today. Each doll, 100 million. This is below 15, below 30, below 45, below 60. This is Europe. This is me. We are above 60 in Europe. This is America. Some retired people missing in South America here. This is Africa today. Already today, more people, more children below 15 than the entire Europe in America together, 400 million. This is Asia where most people and most young people live. But there, the number of young people have stopped increasing. Remember the Asian line who came down to 2? It's already stopped. This big area has to be filled up. Instead of population pyramid, I made it a box. Because the number of children from there to there is not expected to increase. This is what will happen. The old people, they die. The rest grow 15 years older. Children are born. They all die. The rest grow older. And children are born. And we are in 2045. They all die. The rest grow older. And children are born. They all die. The rest grow older. And children are born. What you see is that the number of children stays the same because it's decreasing in Asia, below two. And it's increasing in Africa and that compensates each other. And this entire fill up is not because people get older. It's just a breaking distance. Fill up of adults, inevitable. 2.5 billion more people. And so many environmentally say, oh, we have to stop at 8 billion. It won't happen until they start killing. It's very serious. It's very serious when people don't know. We don't understand. There's no way. You saw that other graph. There's no way we will level off on less than 9.5 billion. That's the most important in the publication last week is to say, forget it. Let's plan for 10 to 11 billion. That's what we will be at least. We may be more if we fail. But this is where it is today. Some people will live longer also. And that will add a little. But that's not the big thing. China doesn't get older because people live longer. They already live long. They get older because the young generation now fills up the older age group. From the time a country reached two children per woman. They go from six, five, four, three, two. From that year, they reached two children per woman. The population continued to grow for 75 years. It's a breaking distance. It's like huge oil pankers populations. You break them and they continue to grow because you have to fill up. So this is what we will have. And you see very clear what I showed before. The world will be African Asia. This will be a very small place. And even Europe is shrinking today. I really had to make an effort almost twist it. I had put in Turkey. Remember why I put in Turkey now? See, Europe just needed Turkey. Otherwise, it will start shrinking there at the bottom. I hope Turkish people would accept to join us in Europe. Extreme poverty is what determines gender equity. The number of children is decreasing in Asia because of lack of gender equality. Japanese women marry late, if ever, and have one child if they marry. That's why you have Japan, Korea, and so on. We have more or less the same pattern all over. Now, this is the world today. 80% of people live in societies which have two child families and they are working to improve their welfare. They have water, tap water already. They have probably, most of them, some sort of toilet facility, which we would call the improvement. Now they want the modern bathroom. Now they want the washing machine. Now they want the nice life. Mexico Catholic, Buddhist in Vietnam, Coptic Christians in Addis Ababa, 1.6 children per woman, Muslims in Bangladesh, Hindus in India. In India, 500 million live in the nine states that already today have two children per woman or less. Two states in India have less children per woman than Sweden. Iran and Brazil have less children per woman than Sweden. It's a completely new world which we need to upgrade to. Money. Now this is a sad thing. When I asked about MDG-1, which is the number of the proportion of people who live in extreme poverty, below $125, that is not having enough food for the day. And we asked the population in Sweden. We asked the population in Norway, in Britain, and in the United States. They answered like this. And the right answer is this. All beat them by ships. Sorry, sorry, sorry, I messed this up there. And this is MDG-1. And so much effort we put into this MDG information. MDG may have been useful in the more narrow policy circle. It's absolutely a failure in the wide public. Because no one who used the MDG to promote development aid controlled or measured what people actually learned or very few did it. Let me be correct, very few did it. We are not fact-based when we run information about the world. And here, let me now show you the income distribution of the world. It's difficult to get it compiled, but more or less it looked like this. Red is Asia, blue is Africa, green America, yellow Europe. Same colors as before. 1820, they were more or less the same. More or less the same. Remember, all of them had five to six children per woman. And they had very little income. Some were rich in feudal countries. Most people were very poor and hungry. This is what happened when Europe and America took off and left Asia and Africa behind. And this is how we came into the modern world. This is when I was a student. There I was a student at the university. And we learned that it was a camel world. One hump for the poor, one hump for the rich. Exactly as when I showed reproduction. One group which had small families and children with good survival, one group that had large families and a high death rate in children. This was the same. What has happened here? Has this merged? Well, let's move it forward. And you can see the number of people increased, but yes, the camel-back hump merged with the front hump and we get a dromedary. Just think like that. What's a camel world? Now it's a dromedary world. Problem is, the poor is as poor as they were. We have not managed to take the poorest and move them away like here. The riches have got even richer. Would I include some individuals? They are over there, some of them. If we had Piketty coming from Paris to lecture, he could stand over here and lecture. And the interesting thing is that so many now of those with high income are in Asia and an increasing number in Africa also. So we have this new complexity where the distance between the poorest and the richest is bigger than ever, but not be the poor and the rich. It's not the dichotomy any longer. It's a distribution where most are in the middle. Now let's see what that can mean if we look at two countries. China and United States. 1968, the better off in the top of the Communist Party and the poorest in rural Mississippi had the same income. You see how modest the Chinese leaders were? They were living at this level. Most of the United States was different. It was a dichotomy. And here comes China. Here comes China. And I only have data to 2010, you know? And today, actually, it covers the entire United States. Every citizen of the United States have a Chinese citizen that have the same income. And this is overwhelming, but China still have people who are at lower income and they even have a few, few in extreme poverty, but really almost no one in the real extreme poverty. That's what they've managed. They've managed to drag people along in this end. And how does this happen then? How does people get out of extreme poverty? Well, this is my favorite photos. And it fits very well to this meeting. It's two girls who have to go and fetch surface water in the river and carry it home. They can't go to school because they have to carry water. And out of poverty is when Mrs. Tapu have made her investment in the first water transport system, which is a wheelbarrow. First little steps. See how proud she is as an entrepreneur. Probably microcredit help her by this. And now one, two, three, and the girls are gone to school. This is the big difference. The first little step, she increased her productivity. To me, economic growth is just about increasing people's productivity. So each working hour, they will produce better and they will live better. With this comes all the other major factors. And I think one of the best measure of getting out of extreme poverty is fertility rate. It's number of children per woman. We can measure that with such precision. The poverty rate is very difficult to measure. And these are the fertility determinants. Out of extreme poverty. And mind you, when we talk about water in people in extreme poverty, often we think, oh, they get diarrhea because they are bad water. Now they lose working hours in going and fetching the water. If they get a tap to their village or even to their house, it's not only that they get the much safer water or just safe water. They also get one to two hours free every day, which is physical hard labor, which they can allocate of something else. Playing with the kids or doing some other business, growing tomatoes, selling tomatoes, getting in money, improving the life condition of the family. Water has more. Here, here. Here stands the public health professor invited to this conference. And I point that in extreme poverty, the most important is to reduce working load for women and girls. Then you also get like a benefit. You get the health effect of it. And people won't tap water not because they want to be healthy. It's just so much easier. So much easier life. And then, of course, female education goes through this. Child survival is necessary. Contraceptives have to be there to implement smaller family. Political commitment is needed for this. And of course, rights for women and a value change for men. Men has to be proud of how children are doing instead of how many they have. And this all is happening. And in this, water improvement is essential. But don't think only the quality of water. Think about reducing the workload in supplying family with water. And water not only for cooking and eating, for washing clothes. If you get the tap water, you don't have to carry the clothes away to the river, leaving the small children at home. It is enormously important to get water out of poverty, to get people out of poverty. They need much better water supply. And then they need to get away from poverty. People don't just want to get out of poverty and have food for the day. They want to get away towards welfare. Look at this happy woman here in Malawi. I spent about 20 years together with African institutions and colleagues doing field research in remote parts of Africa. We studied nutrition and cassava farming systems. So this woman is going to the market to sell cassava. And she said, I get away from poverty mainly because I went to school. I can count. They can't cheat me when I'm selling this. I have a healthy child, so I can go with my child now. I thank aid for the textbook in school and for the mosquito net. But I also thank my government even more for training that teacher and that nurse and paying their seller. Aid ain't taking people and countries out of poverty. It just can help people and countries to do that. Most of it is done by individuals and their governments. And then she loved infrastructure. Thank you, World Bank, for the credit that gave us asphalt. I can reach further with my bicycle. I love my rights. Human rights are very important for me because my good husband works in the city to earn money for us to build a better house. And that's why I need my rights defended. Cellphones are wonderful. Now we know in the village the price at the different markets. And of course, agrotechnology, fertilizer, better irrigation system, and better planting materials is important. Credits bought me this bicycle. And credit also helped us to get safe water in the village. This is very important. We are healthy with that. I don't have to fetch water. I have time to grow crops which I can now go and sell. All this she likes. When globally, especially in the rich countries, when you discuss getting out of poverty, people have a pet investment. Or they love credit. They work in the bank. Oh, people should have credits. Then everything will solve itself. Or they are a little revolutionary. And they say, everyone has the right for health service. Or they are more deep into human rights. Or they are school teacher. Or they are engineers. Or they work with water. And there's a tendency of wanting that aid money. So you overestimate your own factor. Or rather, you don't overestimate it because everything is important. And water is indeed important. But you underestimate the others because it's potentiated each other. It potentiated. The better water supply, it was to relieve her working hours so that she can go to market when the price is good. And she'll know when the price is good because there's cell phone. And she won't be cheated because she went to school. She loves it all. And she really needs the market. But really, she wants to go and have a job. Come invest in my country. I want a factory. There's need for not only agricultural water but industrial water also. And she has a dream. I want a toilet and electricity. And eventually, she wants a washing machine. I always ask my students, especially when I lecture to these environmental classes, I ask them, how many of you on a regular basis hand wash your jeans and your bedsheets? And no, never any hand. Once it happened at Stockholm University, that one guy on the first row, he was sitting there. He rose his hand like this. But around him was a hollow of empty seats. Everyone who can afford a user washing machine in one or the other way, they mechanize it. And that's what all people, that's just to point out the vision, what it's all about. Your work is about getting very, very water efficient washing machines and very environmentally friendly detergents and have the industry to work in that direction. Now, when we continue to ask about this, now I could ask you also, education. I said education was so important. It's so interlinked with getting out of poverty, getting a little money, investing it in water. What is the difference in the world today between the years in school of men and of women? Men above 25 have been eight years to school. How long have women been to school? Three, five, or seven years? How many would say three years? How many would say five years? How many say seven years? Yes, you're also above average. But this is what the Swedes say. This is what the Nuit isn't that cute. This is two absolutely different surveys with two different companies in the neighboring sibling countries, and we get the same result. I've gone back to the data. I can't present this internationally. You have to change it. No, we've got exactly the same result in Sweden and Norway. And the problem is just that it's completely wrong. It's seven years. Women in the world, when it comes to primary school, is just one year behind. And this is not known because so many activists use this fact for their way to explain in the richer end what gender inequality is. Is gender inequality solved? No, it's not at all. It's almost worse to be 14 years old having gone to school, having done well, knowing your capacity, and then being stopped in life and being forced into marriage and a lot of other terrible things that young women meet. The main cause of death in women 15 to 19 years old in the world today is suicide. It really shows what situation. Gender equality, to use primary school enrollment for that, that's a very bad way of measuring gender equality. That is done, not everywhere, but almost everywhere. Once again, it's the idea in the richer end that there's a lot of very poor people who doesn't have water or can't read and write, who are not healthy. They don't see the middle. In the rich end of the world, we have not learned to see the middle. Now, this is the difficult to see. If you live in a country where you have about $100 a day and you look down to the middle who may have $10 a day, you think that $10 a day is the same as $1 a day. But if you live on $1 a day, it's very easy. Wow, they have 10 times as much. That means light bulb. That means water tap. That means sanitation. Then we can have our toilet. This is the big leap forward for many families. When you are here, you already have a bicycle. You are saving money for the motorbike, and then you are aiming for that one. In the simple way, this is what's difficult to explain, that this group exists. Many who live in the richest country think that this is the same group. It's extremely different to live on $10 or $1 a day. Now, what about wash in this area? If I put up on this income distribution in the world, 7 billion people, each one is 1 billion. This is what they earn, on average, in dollar per year, GDP per capita. Now, this one has fire. This one have a light bulb. This have a bicycle. This one have a motorbike. Here they have a refrigerator, a car, a washing machine, and all things, some necessary, but many unnecessary, and then they fly on holiday. Now, people living up here, you must see. The big leap is this one, and this one. These are the big leap. Then this is even nicer. They are going to the beach, and everyone want to get here. Many environmental activists get it completely wrong. They don't realize how big the challenge is, because everyone wants to that machine. They want to relieve the time it takes to have a washing machine. It's almost like having that tap water. You get hours and hours away from hard work. Now, if I do like this, how many have water of this? Six out of seven have improved water today. Congratulation to your sector. You have done fine. It's an enormous increase since some decade ago. You have one billion, even less than one billion who doesn't have improved water today. It's enormous, but now you have all these people in the middle. What is their problem with water? It's quality. They may be contaminated with microbes. It may be contaminated with other toxic product. There may be a lot of different problems with it. So the focus today swaps over from getting the last billion to the tap on to improving quality here. And that quality should be improved, but we shouldn't forget that the work is not finished. We still have almost a billion of fellow human beings in extreme poverty. How many have latrines? This one has a toilet. This one has a toilet. This one has a toilet. This has a toilet. And half of them have toilet. So sanitation is much worse off. I was in Nepal recently. And the last household survey in Nepal shows that 80% of the population have cell phone and 60% have a latrine. That means cell phone is here in between. Water, highest percentage, then cell phone, then toilet. And the reason is that your sector have failed to produce an eye toilet, a smart toilet. Anyone here are going to present at the exhibition the smart toilet, you know? Did this need any aid money to get to know? It was a blessing from engineers who made us these phones and these systems. And they are so important for people out in poverty. The woman there was grateful. She knew the price now when she was out there. So improved water looks like this. Improved water looks like this. If I jump here and I go to this one. Here we are. Here improved water source, percent of the population. This is 1990. India and China was down there. So what has changed? Look, at relatively modest income, countries have improved indeed. And although I only have data here to 2010, it's really so that from $4,000, it's fine, almost fine. Here you have an enormous quality problem. But please segmentize the world. Don't think about the world as industrialized and developing countries. If you do that, you will miss out the extreme poverty because they are in minority today. And I think that development aid, actually, which is now given from $12,000 per capita, should change the cutoff. Do the cutoff at $4,000 instead, because here is where the severe problem remains. These countries are very capable to manage many things on their own, and there should be trade collaboration and technical collaboration. Money transfer is not needed. In fact, Turkey, Brazil, Mexico is now countries who provide aid to countries in desperate need. They have aid agencies, and then other countries keep giving money to them. The disease rank in the world is like this. See? The blue is non-communicable disease. Green is injury, and red is the diseases most of poverty. Infection, pregnancy, newborn, and nutrition. So what is number five? It's HIV, and there is diarrhea. Still high up, but this is measured not as number of deaths. It measured as life years lost and disability cause. Please do not compare diseases as number of deaths, because then prostate cancer will win, because it hit old men. People who use death to compare diseases, they think that you will live forever. We won't, unfortunately. No one will. There's only one number that is absolutely correct and safe in medical science. There's 100% mortality if you just have a long observation time. Everyone dies in the end. And it's so sad that we still compare deaths, especially for diarrheal disease, which hit the young, and the young adults in such a way. Here, you have stroke, there you have pneumonia, and there you have a chemic heart disease. As burden, if you then would use deaths instead, diarrhea will fall way down on this list. I have to jump over this one, and instead I'll go to this one. This is intricate, but this is the risk factors for disease. And if you look at death, the risk for death in the whole world, the main risk is diet, then high blood pressure, then smoking, then household air pollution. Indoor air pollution is today a bigger problem than unmet needs for water and sanitation. And high body mass index, glucose. These are all what kills, because what kills people today are the diseases of old age. And if you look at death here, you have lack of sanitation, lack of safe water, with 240,000 deaths there and 160,000 deaths there. Now there is a new study by Bruce and Ustun, which is coming out this year that calculates slightly different, so you will see more clearly it's difficult to estimate this. But anyhow, today, on a global basis, counting deaths, the deaths caused by the remaining $1 billion who doesn't have safe water. That's not the major thing. But if I move to the poorest countries and look at life years lost, that is the number of years lost, so then I can get a heavy burden of those who die young, then unimproved sanitation, unimproved water is among the most important. But remember, this is not the main reason for providing water solutions in extreme poverty. It's that you relieve working hours. You make their life more efficient. The opportunity cost is the more important. Energy and climate, well, I can't do much about this. Just let me show you this. This is the fossil fuel of the world. This is the nuclear. This is bio and hydro. And oh, sorry, this here. This is solar and wind. It's very little, 1%. Very important, 81% of the world runs on fossil fuel. That hasn't decreased over the last 20 to 30 years. Now, how is this distributed over the $7 billion? You remember, there were safe water to here. There was latrine to half of here. How is fossil fuel distributed? Well, the richest $1 billion take half of it. Wow, it ended up. There it is. There was some mistake in this, but if I do it like this, the richest take half, the next take half of what's left, the next take half. These three billions consume 87% of the fossil fuel. This doesn't make sense to talk about developed world and developing world any longer. And when activists stand up here and say, you cannot live like us, that would never work. You give birth to too many children. Now, it's these two billions that will increase their fossil fuel consumption and change the climate. Together with these ones that continue to admit as much as they have been emitting before. The people over there, they have a kerosene lamp in the village. They're very modest use of fossil fuel. And these two groups, they have less than two children per woman. They have the lowest number of children. Climate change is not about number of people. It's about amount and type of consumption. And this is what we really have to realize. Where do the children die? The children die here. Burning fossil fuel saved the life of children. This is the hard fact. By that, I will end and I shall go to the final things. I can leave that. I think I can leave that for discussion or if we get the question. I end here. We have a world that you have to segmentize. Nice bathroom with Jacuzzi in the richest billion. Then bathroom is coming in the second billion. Relatively good water and wash in the third billion. And then quality problem in the fifth and the sixth and then extreme poverty in the last two billions. You have to segmentize this and don't mix it up. And especially aid, I think, should be used for the poorest billion. The others have to find economic feasible solutions. Thank you very much.