 There is an agreement on what is the cost of capital. There is no international consensus on how important it is to promote green technologies. Most people still think about green technologies as they were in the 80s, 90s, where the main problems were linked to engineering, reliability, etc. Nowadays, the renewable energy technology are extraordinarily robust from an engineering viewpoint. The cost is not so high anymore. For example, as you know solar cells have dropped by close to 70% over the last three years. So the main issue known for renewable energy is not so much the cost of the technology but the cost of the financing of that technology. If you invest $1 million at 5%, you have to reimburse $1.5 million. If you invest $1 million at 12%, you have to reimburse $3 million. And actually in Europe, in OECD countries, renewable energy investors get money at 5%. In developing countries it's more 12%. So the same technology that can be competitive in Europe suddenly is no more competitive vis-à-vis fossil fuels only because of the difference in the cost of financing of the technology. So what is your proposal with regards to the cost of capital? First is to understand why? Why do we have such a big difference in the cost of capital? Most of the OECD countries have mature domestic capital markets. Developing countries have to rely on international capital markets. And international capital markets are very, very cautious about investing in what seems to be new technologies in uncertain political environment. And so they tend to be extremely cautious about any kind of institutional, technical, political, administrative risk. And so for example, if you are not so sure about the guarantee payment for a project, they will insist on a very, very high cost of money to compensate for their additional risk. And so the way to reduce the cost of capital in developing countries is actually to address all this risk and remove them. There is a big discussion in the field of market transformation. Should you use public money to compensate for risk such as, for example, subsidies, increased tariff, or should you use public money to remove risk by, for example, removing, streamlining the licensing process, investing in the local skills of people? And we deeply believe, based on all the empirical evidences of the past 20 years, that you have much better to invest in removing risk than in compensating for risk. So what is the ratio between the money you put in for removing risk and for dealing with the consequences? Well, you had the entire term reports about it. The one can challenge the exact figures, but it's much, much more cost-effective to prevent and to cure. This is true for health, this is true for the planet, this is true for climate change. How should you get rid of subsidies for fossil fuels? Subsidies, first thing will be to try to figure out how many subsidies, how much is the total amount of money being provided in the form of subsidies. It's anywhere between 500 billion to 1 trillion. Nobody knows exactly the total amount because there is no tracking system to figure out how much is given to whom and for what. And each, most of the subsidies when they are put in a place are actually making sense, they are meeting a specific objective. But the situation changes and the rationale for the subsidies disappears, but the subsidies do stay because you have a vested interest. That makes sure that the subsidies do not disappear. And so the reason why we have such a big subsidy problem right now is because subsidies age very badly and they never get removed. And so the first step is to try to figure out exactly how much public money is being invested in subsidies. Try to figure out what is the actual impact of the subsidies in terms of poverty reduction, do they truly meet their initial needs. And after, come with alternative to subsidies in order to achieve the same impact. For example, if the impact, if the objective is poverty reduction, couldn't we achieve the same poverty reduction objective through for example having universal social safety net.