 Thank you, thank you, and I know we're all grateful to all three, all three presenters for the excellent, excellent presentations. We're now going to segue, move to the discussion portion. And I want to greet Jeremy Oppenheim, the Director of Sustainability and Resource Productivity Practice from McKinsey and Company, who has joined us. Welcome. Thank you for, thank you for coming. And I'd like to start off just reflections on the, on the topic and reflections on the presentation. Judith, why don't we, why don't we start with you? Well, if I could just deviate for a moment. You can deviate in any way we want to. Right. Okay. It's a city after all. Right, okay. Progressive. Right. As the leader of the financial district, the City of London, it was very interesting to come back to this building, because this building was the first project that the city funded in the early 1990s in redevelopment and regeneration in the so-called city bridge. And we did it because we liked the fact that it had been a very efficient power station, but we didn't want to lose the building and was more sustainable to develop a circus space in here and a conference space and give employment and training to young people. So this is a very historic place for this electric conference to be in, because this is where it all began as far, as far as London was concerned. And it was interesting because, of course, London has always had suffered from having strong boroughs and cities and no regional government. And it was interesting that some of the boroughs and the cities did take on the whole sustainable development green economy and drove it. My authority drove the Clean Air Act for the whole of the country in the 50s after the London smog. We built the first combined heat and power station very close to here. So a lot of the activity in London was borough focused. But now, of course, we have the mayor, who we saw in full flight this morning. And the mayor has taken on and takes very seriously, along with people like Nikki Gavron, who's sitting in the audience, what the green economy means to London. And the green economy in London has actually bucked the downturn. It's growing over 5% per year. And a lot of it is due to the fact it began in the city. 97% of the carbon trading for Europe is done in the city. So a lot of the financial instruments, which actually go to fund sustainable development worldwide, were developed. We developed the London Principles of Sustainable Finance, which Tony Blair launched at the Johannesburg Earth Summit, which the UN then took over. People often think that financial districts are not interested in this stuff. They are, and most of the developmental work has actually taken place here in London. And that, I think, is quite exciting that one small area can have such a global reach. Now we're looking at what London does. And it's been very interesting. The themes through your discussions this morning is you've all said forget national government is going to be done at a city level, which is a theme that I have been constantly preaching that the city rules the world, and we might as well get used to the idea. But it's come through very consistently with all of your presentations. And when Boris did his initial survey in 2010 about London's green economy, it showed that London had huge environmental strengths. Very much borough-based, but now being centrally organized. In carbon finance, geothermal, including ground source heat pumps, local heat networks, which are much more efficient. We'd developed those before they were trendy. Combined heat and power stations, solar and photovoltaic and waste management. All of these activities were going on in London, but we're now capturing them and building on them. Together with things like the building regulations and looking at what happens in actual building itself. So the London economy, green economy is booming. It's been very much driven originally by the boroughs. And are regionally coordinated. And then of course, you get companies like Seaman coming in, building the stunning crystal center, and actually driving this. And I think it's interesting that cities are the clients, cities are the policy makers, and cities are going to drive this. Thank you, on that stirring note. Andy, thank you very much. I think I'm going to draw briefly on two quick examples. One is the Olympic Park, which sits only 10 minutes from where we are now. My experience, I'm running the legacy and prior to that is the deputy mayor of Philadelphia, the fifth largest city in the United States. And I guess I want to say too, my sort of main point is to say that one can build an incredibly smart city. You can do all the things that Roland has talked about, all the things that you've talked about in terms of density. And still actually produce a very dumb city. What I mean by that is the article I thought Richard Senate wrote, which was very, very interesting. Which said, if you forget the sort of the elements of the fabric of the city. I mean, what this program, what the urban age is about, the connection of the physical, social, economic, and now technological. But if you forget those elements that it does, it lands in space. And that that spatial dimension, the urban form, right? The streets, the blocks, the public spaces, and how those are created. If that's not done with the attention to what we've learned about how cities work and what makes them successful, all of these can ultimately land and may not result in a smart city. So when thinking about the Olympic Park, very close to here and building a new piece of city, what does one look to? How did we think about that? And I think it really starts, first of all, by going back to some of the principles and talk about Richard Rogers and Ann Powers here and Ricky Burdette, who talked over a decade ago about in the urban site paper and compact cities, which is compact cities building on brownfields, building on transport, urban reclamation, and getting that fine grain of the fabric in the public spaces that makes cities ultimately successful as diverse and interesting places. And that is what the Olympic Park was, was taking an is, which is centered on transport, 600 acre brownfield site. Now, what was the model? Was the model Mazdar? Was it Sanjay? Was it the places that we think of the smart city of the future? Actually, in the planning of that, when Ricky and I walked around, said, well, wait a minute, I'm not going to look to these places. I may look to the best elements of those in terms of what they're doing with some of the technologies. But actually, in terms of the form of the city, the basic building block of the city, let's go back and look right here in London, right before us. What has made London so successful, the dynamism of London, so much connected to the very physical nature of London, its streets, its blocks, its public squares, the crests of the canals, the way one mixes the natural and the built environment. Let's take those as our foundation for the city. Then let's overlay how one makes the technology, the elements that we're talking about, smart grid, building technologies, more efficient transportation, all the various things we've talked about, decentralized energy sources, et cetera, and connect that with the physical fabric of the city. So in other words, that your technology master plan must fit within the context of what your urban master planning is, which then needs to go back and derive from what are those elements of urban form that have made cities successful to make them not only dense places, but diverse places for interaction, places where innovation will occur. And that's when you see Boris today talking about an announcement for the Broadcast Center, it's a very conscious strategy to create economic diversity, the use of a warehouse building to bring innovation, but that's going to exist within an overall city form that's about public spaces and a mixture of densities as well as diversity of population. And it is that very mixture of the reason why UCL is thinking of going to East London because of that, attracted that. So I guess my plea is let's not forget in all of the discussion of technology and advanced technology systems that we must make sure they're integrated into what we know about how to build cities and make them successful because often I think we can get lost in talking about all these things which are appropriate and absolutely right about what it is that actually makes the physical city so successful. And as a final point to Bruce's presentation on taking the United States example, but a very tangible manifestation of the green economy in the city of Philadelphia that went back to this idea of using the very physical form of Philadelphia, of the row homes of Philadelphia, fifth largest city in the United States, one of the poorest cities in the United States, when the stimulus program came down from the premise of Obama, how does one use those? Looked at this city called the city of homes, over 200,000 row homes or terraced houses in London terminology, which and over 40,000 of those being abandoned and said, how could we use these funds to actually reclaim many of those buildings through weatherization, through energy efficiency and put people to work? So again, it was going back to say, what is it that makes the sort of essential DNA of cities and how to take the green economy and technology and make sure that those are truly integrated and it's not forgotten in the equation? Thanks, Annie. I want to actually pull out what I thought was a particularly wise element in what was just said. This conference is about the electric city, and I think it's very much about the electric city in both senses of the word, the city of technology, the city of electronic connections over the internet, but it's also about the electric city that goes on with the electricity when two people meet, when two people connect with each other, with the social fabric of the city. But those two parts of the city only make sense if they work together, if they speak to each other. If the electronic technology serves the social fabric, if the social fabric then in turn supports the creation of new technology and further. And I think that is really just a central point. I hope it continues to guide us as we continue to tangle with these topics over the next two days. Chair Mian, thank you. So thank you. So just three quick points, and hopefully building on at least in part on what's been already said. So on resource efficiency, which Dmitri rightly made you on, I mean the one thing we know is that if the world, if we're going to address the challenge of growth and growth within our environmental limits, the resource efficiency agenda is critical, and within that cities play the biggest role by a country mile. And when we look at the different elements of resource efficiency, and the report that Dmitri mentioned is the resource revolution report, in which we identify 15 critical resource productivity levers, that the world economy must address if it's going to, in a sense, meet the challenge of growth within limits. They include building efficiency, waste management, urban water leakages, urban densification, the way we think about the building design and the use of different forms of steel. 13 of the 15 are dependent on the way in which cities operate. So cities are at the heart, but the one thing we haven't talked about, even though we talk about policy, is the nature of institutions, and the way in which the institutional arrangements either support or get in the way of driving those efficient arrangements. And those institutional capacity, not just policy at the highest level, but institutional capacity to deliver, is a challenge here in London, but it's an even greater challenge in many, many other parts of the world. So there's an efficiency and institution story. We need to get our heads around. There's a second thing that got much less attention in any of the presentations, and I apologize for arriving a little bit late for yours, Bruce, but the question of resilience is a huge deal. So we looked at the 2,400 cities across the world that will be accountable for 90% of global growth over the next 25 years. And two-thirds of them are severely exposed in one way or another to acute shocks over the next 25 to 30 years, and that is without taking into account changes in the parameters that might result from climate change. And if I changed what are one in 100 year events to one in 25 year events, the proportion of cities that are vulnerable to acute shocks, particularly, of course, in East Asia, in South Asia, but also, of course, as we've seen recently in the Eastern Seaboard of the United States. I mean, this is an enormous circuit breaker on the global economy, right? Because all of those cities, in one way or another, not just act as islands, but act as critical nodes in an overall economic global system, there is inadequate thinking today about how one approaches the resilience of a world economy in which effectively we're moving not just 65 million people to cities every year, but we're moving the vast majority of them to the coast, right? To the coast, right? And in many, many cases, the very vulnerable parts of the, if you will, the global geophysical system. So I'd encourage us to put a bit more emphasis on that, and I'd encourage us not only to think about resilience in an abstract way, but what are the approaches, where, for example, could forms of green infrastructure play a key role in actually enabling cities to take on the challenge of increased vulnerability, whether it's to weather events or, for that matter, to food security related events, which outside, if you will, the safety of London, if you go to cities in many other parts of the world, the food security and the food price spikes will be a huge deal, and they are all linked. So last point, if I may, and I think it's the point that, in a way, Ad, you were relating to. It's one thing to talk about all these issues in very technical terms, and that's what we're, in some ways, most comfortable doing. But these cities only work and address the issues, both of efficiency and resilience. If we create voice, if we create and take advantage of new ways of creating participation, and at least just listening to the conversation and the bit of it that I've heard, how we dial up the way to make, to create voice, to create engagement, to enable people to take ownership of their city, of their square mile, and to adapt their behaviors by learning rapidly, adaptively, through whether it's different smart information systems or other platforms and social media, or just day-to-day interactions, what it means to be a real trustee, to feel a sense of ownership of one's own city. How we do that may be the key to unlocking the opportunities we've discussed this morning. This is really central, right? I mean, cities are places of vulnerability as well as tremendous strength, and the weaker the political institutions are in a country, the harder the country has to develop both the infrastructure needed to protect against disaster, and also rescue efforts, the work of Matthew Kahn, shows very clearly that the same earthquake does significantly more damage if the political institutions of the country are weak than if the institutions of the countries are strong. Just compared, Chile's really quite remarkable response to the earthquake a year ago, with Haiti's quite disastrous response to that earthquake. I want to open it up here, but I want to sort of target us in a particular area, which is that so much of what will happen that relates to the environment in cities in the next century will happen in Asia. It will also happen in sub-Saharan Africa, but this was a point that Dimitri made. The developing world cities are really where change will happen, whereas the developed world cities are much more set in their ways, right? Copenhagen will be green, Houston will not be, we can fiddle around a little bit on the margins, but the truth of the matter is what happens in Mumbai, what happens in Chennai and so forth is going to be far more important, and just one fact to keep you in mind, the average household carbon emissions, we all know that China is the largest global carbon emitter on the whole, but the household sector, it's tiny right now, meaning the stuff that's not involved in production, right? The average household in China's cities is emitting less than one-tenth of the average household in America's cities, and in fact the least green of China's cities is more than one-fifth, is emitting one-fifth less household carbon than the greenest, the brownest Chinese, one-fifth of the greenest US, just huge scope for change, particularly as China air conditions. So I want to throw it back, and I'm going to start with reverse order and throw it back to Jeremy because I know you've thought about this, but if there was one idea that you would have for making the growing cities of the developing world, particularly Asia, but I'm open to other things, if there's one central idea you'd want the people in this conference to take away from what we should be doing, that we're not doing right now, what would it be? That's a great question. Look, I did come back to finding ways right from the start to get the citizens of those cities engaged in one form or another in shaping the evolution of that. It's very easy. I mean, what we do, we can throw at you, as I'm sure Alan can as well, your wonderful stories about astonishing improvements in air conditioning efficiency, right? Wonderful examples of urban densification. I mean, the fact that China's spending $180 billion over the next decade in introducing 37 new metro systems, all of those things will be wonderful, but at the heart of it, it will be figuring out how people can effectively shape a different form of behavior and a different set of interactions with their fellow city dwellers that will be at the heart of how these cities evolve. A very human call for voice and legitimacy in government that we cut through incorporating that. Andy? Same question. Yeah, I understand. I was just thinking because the urban age I've traveled with many of the cities globally over the past five or six years. I guess the one thing I say is that with the numbers that have been thrown out that the rate of urbanization, how fast it's happening, is also necessitating in a way people are looking for the quick solutions and in many of those cities that are going to create more problems in the long term than they'll solve. And that they happen at a scale and rapidity that's sort of unprecedented. So, you know, we have a congestion problem. We're going to build more freeways. That's the answer that happened 50 years ago. That's what we wanted to and we can do that at a tremendous scale or whatever it may be. Or here's the skyscraper we like that skyscraper model will now do 5,000 of those. So I think the question is again, it goes back to the core. We need to be very careful, I think, in how one builds the kind of cities that we're going to build, not, you know, and going back to what the DNA, the form of those cities is, which was my point before, that what we've learned about cities, because the scale at which they're happening, both learn what's great about those cities themselves, inherent in those cities, what we saw, for example, in Mumbai and Dharavi and those places that had a kind of fabric in form to them, yes, they have things that need to be improved, but not rush, for example, to take a Dharavi and say we're going to replace all of that with this one form of, you know, a high-rise city, which won't function at a social and human level. So I think it is the caution because of the pace and because of the, you know, the numbers of people that are moving to cities as we not forget that some of those basic physical form of cities that will allow for the social economic, social interactions, the diversity, and ultimately, the greener, smarter cities that we care about and not just look to replicate one solution everywhere and go to scale almost too quickly. That can be destructive in the long term. Great, thank you. I would say look at infrastructure and actually plan the infrastructure. I was startled when I was taken, when I went to Mumbai and was shown the new financial district and they had not got the electricity, the telecommunications, the plumbing and all of that. They had wonderful skyscrapers but nothing much underground and I would say coupled with looking at smart infrastructure and the appropriate infrastructure and getting that right before you do the urban sprawl is vitally important but linked to that is the resilience of the infrastructure. I was struck being one of the first Brits to go in after 9-11. I went to see Bill Macdonald down at the Fed and he said, you know, how do you cope in the city of London because you've gone through all the IRA bombs? I said we've got three telephone exchanges. We don't just have one under a building that's been destroyed. We can switch stuff. We've got different electricity substations. We've got power and water and gas coming from different places. This is what we've learned that you need to have resilience in your infrastructure. And, you know, I'm a trustee of the earthquake fund for New Zealand, for Christchurch. And just looking at what nature does when it reclaims a city and how disruptive that is, it makes you realize that the resilience of infrastructure is actually the key. I think that's it. Both points there are incredibly wise, one of which is focusing on defensive, resilient infrastructure that can actually take a hit and still enable the city to function. But the second point, which is really central, is that it's just a lot easier to dig tunnels when the ground is fresh than when you've put skyscrapers on top of it, right? As Boston learns from its $18 billion big dig project in London, as it has surely learned over centuries, right? And planning early is just critical. In fact, the crossrail, when crossrail was just mooted, the city required all the buildings on the crossrail line to have crossrail boxes in them. The developers pushed back and said, why? It'll never be built. And we said, you put the crossrail boxes in. And so that's why there'll be less disruption with crossrail because in the new build on the line, the boxes are already there. Very, very smart. And you have to do that planning. Very, very smart. Mitchy? Very interesting. Well, I would echo some of the comments you made, Ed, about institutions and their importance. I mean, without wanting to sound overly negative, I think for those cities which don't have functional institutions and governance structure, there's almost not much you can do except for wait until they do. Which of course is very dangerous because in the meantime, those kinds of cities will tend to be exactly the same. Well, that leads to Jeremy's point, which is, we do work on the political institutions first. That's exactly right. They've been done before they're in their place. That's exactly right. However, for those cities where institutions are functional, and very often it's a consequence of historical accident. If you look across Latin America where dictatorships collapsed and suddenly there was a sort of power vacuum and positions for strong mayors emerged. Come at the moment, come at the man or woman. And these mayors did indeed emerge. And you see some extraordinary examples in Bogotá, in Irachiba, and elsewhere of strong progressive leadership from the mayoral level. And the thing about that kind of leadership is that at first it looks incredibly politically risky. But if you exercise bold leadership, you will reap rewards. So there's examples, I think it's in Bogotá, where the mayor just planned cycle lanes effectively with integrated water and sewerage under... Well, that's a fantastic way to talk about it with Dieter, but it's an amazing idea. And the informal infrastructures will follow. And they will have transport and they'll have sewerage and they will have essential infrastructure. In this city, the classic example, of course, is congestion charging. The mayor's advisors told him he was frankly bonkers. He had a screw loose. It was deeply unpopular. He did it. He did it. It was popular enough to survive. It's been unwound a little bit by Boris Johnson, but it's still there. And I suspect it will now be there forever. We've locked into congestion charging and it's seen as part of not only the physical infrastructure of London, but it's actually part of the cultural infrastructure. You go to various Scandinavian cities and you ask, how comes you're so far ahead of the game on recycling, on long-term thinking? And they say, well, that's just how we do things here. Why don't you do that? It's... You cannot unlock that. But the problem with path dependencies is the initial condition matters. The trigger that puts you on that sustainable path is really important. That, of course, means high risks, but of course it affords huge opportunities for mayors and leaders that are bold enough to actually take advantage of that importance in making choices early. One natural implication of that is that the time for imposing congestion pricing in developing world cities is probably now. Because if you get to the US point where you have an overwhelming share of the population driving, it becomes politically impossible to do. If you do it now when a small fraction of the population charges, it's infinitely more politically possible. So it's... The time for action on this is assuredly sooner than many people would think. I'm really hoping you're going to give us some fantastic technological innovations coming out of Siemens that's going to solve all of this without the need to fix political institutions or anything else. But I'm not sure that Siemens can deliver that magic, but maybe it can't be a... So coming back to your point when you talked about Asia and emerging countries, I mean, to some extent I disagree because you should not underestimate and estimate the investment which goes into the existing infrastructure in the old economies. Some of them are outdating 30, 40 years of grits which have to be replaced in the United States in European as well. So there's a lot of investment going there and you can also have a lot of benefits. But coming to Asia and your question, they are for the differentiate. I mean China and India as the two extremes on the one side. I mean, first of all, common statement is a proper planning in both countries would help quite a lot in order to really get it get it right from the first place. You have to have in mind that if you're talking about infrastructure, you're investing and you're locking in Apple for the next 20, 30 years. Do that right. You have a lot of benefits. Do it wrong. You have a top issue. The thinking in Asia is more on and this is many reasons is more on the Cup-X rather than OPEX. So they make and this is one of the things which I think we could also help and get a better planning is looking more on the total cost of ownership on what does it cost finally run infrastructure. Making a quick investment and just run it and then find out, well, a little bit more investment would have done a much better job in sustainability energy finishes is one thing. Second one is, I mean, talking about China, you have the right policy in place. I mean, you know, that the current fifth year plan is really focusing on energy efficiency, which is a hot KPI for each and every mayor and governor, yet you have subsidized energy prices. I mean, how do you now how do you now get incentives for people to invest in energy efficiency in buildings if they pay too low? So now what's the consequence? The consequence is some some governments that are pushing out now energy consuming industries to somewhere in order to make their targets. I think this is something which is not really the right way of treating it. And if you talk about India, this is a completely different one because they're talking about policies and land use and all that stuff. I mean, it hinders so much of how the country can move and make better cities, which is another point. And finally, and I'm coming back, indeed, we do have good technologies to solve a lot of these problems. And in contrast to charging in contrast to pricing, road pricing, I strongly believe this is something which will happen in each and every country. This is and just have to price your infrastructure and make it dynamically. So that means, but at the same time, don't forget, if you do not offer enough public transport at the same time, you are you are really somehow get a lot of trouble. If you do that wisely, like for example, Singapore does, they understood that balance quite well. Then you can do that. Did Bruce quick point because I think the last I think the minister has arrived. So this gets to how we talk about cities across these very different kinds of societies and economies. You mentioned and you mentioned Phoenix and Houston, right? And in this gathering, we will all basically talk about how they've sprawled, they've decentralized, that they don't have a green bone in their body, right? But I believe that places like Houston and places like Phoenix and places like Atlanta may not be the greenest cities in the world, but they may be the center of clean innovation and green innovation on the products and the services that the rising cities of Asia and the rising cities of Latin America can use to urbanize more. And so I think we have to talk about American cities and particularly these large American cities that have ruined themselves from a spatial and environmental perspective being the centers of innovation going forward. So at least we can respect and engage them on the broader exercise we're involved in. I agree with that. And just to end with an anecdote of that, America has seen as carbon emissions go down significantly over the last couple of years. That is primarily because there has been a war on coal that has been waged. Successfully, that war has been won by natural gas, right? Natural gas is what's been waging war on gold. Why is natural gas so cheap? Why is it reducing carbon emissions? Fracking, where did fracking come from? George P. Mitchell, right? Texas natural gas man, the man who built the Woodlands outside of Houston, right? So Houston is in fact capable of doing remarkable things for greening the country, even if they do drive a lot and use a lot of air conditioning. With that, thank you all to a wonderful, wonderful panel, really tremendously insightful and I think a great way to kick off today and now we should cede the floor. But thank you all.