 Well, thanks to Channing and to Wider. I'm very pleased to have a chance to participate in this meeting and this group will try to convince you over the next hour and a half that this is really an important part of the question of mapping the future of development, economics. We're now two months away from a major event to remake, to relaunch to reconstruct the climate regime. And I want to talk a bit about where that's going and what the implications are. And I'm sure there are people in this room who have devoted hours of their lives to this process, and there are some of you who have not. So to get everybody on the same page as to what we're talking about on the climate side, I'll give a kind of personalized view of where this system is. And this is just a picture of the global CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2015. And we started this process in 1992 with creating the Framework Convention on Climate Change. And then there are members of that, all nations essentially are signatories of that treaty, that framework treaty. And then they have meet year after year in what's called the Conference of the Parties, the COP, as it's called, to try to bring this regime for control of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change into control. So the one key event was the creation of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. And over the next sorts of 18 years, up to the time of the Copenhagen meeting in 2009, for 18 years we tried to make this system work. This was a system of legally binding targets and timetables where the obligation to restrict emissions was only on the developing countries. The key phrase here, the key phrase of art, is CBD arc, common but differentiated responsibilities. So the developing countries took on legally binding national targets, and the developed countries did. And the developing countries had various obligations, but not for emissions reduction. And over 18 years we tried to make that system work. And in Copenhagen it collapsed after much effort. And in Copenhagen a small group of heads of state got together and essentially constructed or switched to a different architecture. Instead of legally binding national targets and timetables, we moved to a system what is loosely called Pledge and Review, where countries are only going to do what they're going to do voluntarily and subject themselves to a review process. That is the regime that was essentially began to be constructed then. And then in Durban there were instructions given to the negotiators to really construct the architecture of this Pledge and Review system. And the Durban platform told people, instructed the nations agreed that they would come to a formalization of all that in a meeting in Paris, which starts in November of 2015. So we're just about there. And much effort has been given to do this. And the key task of this, in my view, of this Paris agreement is to somehow construct a system so we don't spend another 20 years trying to make this system effective. Now I'm going to talk about some various aspects of that architecture. I will come back to three words at the end that I think are important in Paris, review, cycles, and finance. But we'll come back to that. Now what were the instructions to the negotiators? They were to note with grave concern the two degree goal, limiting the global change to two degrees C. The global change to two degrees C has been a goal that's been around a long time. Now we don't say we're going to meet it, we're going to note it with grave concern, but limiting the total effect on the earth is a key part. And then the Pledge is the key word about Pledge is what's called nationally determined contributions. These are the voluntary pledges. They are voluntary pledges or actions that countries agree to do. They take effect from 2020 after negotiations in 2015. And there's to be a review process. And as we go in the preparation for Paris, there's a first step where countries are going to put forth what are called indicated national contributions, or INDCs, or countries are supposed to put forth in the framework convention website their pledges of what they're going to do. In general, the developed countries are putting together some national pledges. The developing countries are putting forth things they say they're going to do. Sometimes, as I'll describe later, conditional on aid. The whole notion of common but differentiated responsibilities is no longer a negotiated matter, as it was on the Kyoto. But it's something that underlies the discussion and that it's, of course, generally viewed that the developed countries have greater responsibility than the developing countries. There are a lot of other themes I'm not going to talk about. It's a very complicated matter. There are issues of adaptation. There are issues of finance, technology transfer, capacity building. Right now, the negotiating document going into Paris is 90 pages at about a font, eight, single spaced, filled with brackets and the alternative paragraphs and such. So it's a very complicated process, which they're trying to work out, which we can't go into here. I want to focus mainly on the mitigation part. But important to the finance side is another statement that was made in Copenhagen. The developed countries made a statement, I don't know if I used the word commitment, but it was a statement that by 2020, they would mobilize a very good diplomat's word, mobilize $100 billion a year to aid mitigation and adaptation. By 2020, they would somehow find $100 billion a year for mitigation and adaptation. That's the instructions to the negotiators and much is not yet agreed. So what are the issues going into Paris, least on mitigation? We don't know what the first target date is. The national contributions are supposed to go into effect as of 2020. When is the target date? When would they have a review? We don't know that, 2025, 2030. What's the nature of the review of performance? Monitoring, reporting and verification is an extremely sensitive matter because it involves national security and potential embarrassment and the like. That's still being negotiated. Who does what? Clearly, you would do review ex-post. Do you do review ex-ante? These are also tricky political questions. And of course, the timing of the review, as I'll describe later, is quite important. It's not clear what the nature of the future cycle of pledges would be because Paris is initiating, we're launching a new process. They're not going to create the whole process there, launching a system. So what that cycle is. And there's no agreement yet on the scope of the contribution. So there's much discussion and conflict over the role of markets and trading, offsets and joint crediting and such. Who gets credit for what? So there's still a great deal to work out just on mitigation. And there's no agreement yet on what the legal form is. The Durban instructions say there's supposed to be a legal agreement of some kind. But it's clear, at least to me and most people, that there will not be an agreement that requires ratification by parliaments and congresses, as was the true in Kyoto. So what that will be, we don't know yet. So that's the task. There's a chairman's draft trying to work this out. And much of this will not be resolved until Paris. There are endless meetings to try to clean up the draft and get close to what agreement would be, but that probably will be done in Paris. There will probably be 15,000 to 20,000 people attending that meeting as the nations try to negotiate this. Now what is the task? Well I go back to my picture before. Here's the progress to date. Progress to date you see we had on the draft before the Kyoto Protocol, which achieved some things, but essentially that architecture is not going to go forward. We had this new Pleasant Review architecture. And the task, if you wanted to meet two degrees C or something close to that in terms of the effects on global climate, involve the red lines. Now the dotted line is one of our scenarios of what would be an emissions path that would be consistent with the 50-50 chance of meeting the two degree target. Now there's a lot of uncertainty about that. There's a lot of uncertainty about how the climate system responds to emissions. And there's a lot of uncertainty about growth of economies and the carbon cycle and all that. So to search this global goal, there's a general range of areas where the emissions might be limited. But it's generally agreed I think by the scientists who work in this and certainly it's to be found in the assessment reports of the intergovernmental planet on climate change. If we don't stop the growth of global emissions by about 2040 and begin to turn the system around, then it's not just that two degrees is in the rearview mirror, but a lot more than two degrees is in the rearview mirror. So the view that we've taken in our work on this is that we've stopped worrying about 2070 and 2090 and 2100. The question is can we stop the growth, can we turn the system around by 2040? And so this is the task I think we need to focus on as we construct the new regime. And the question I will address here is are we on a path to do this? And what will it take to get on the path to do this? And what are the implications for the larger discussion that's taking place in this meeting? Now we do an analysis of this in our group at MIT. And this is what I'm going to show you. We construct a baseline of projection of global greenhouse gas emissions. And the one I'm going to show you is what we think would be the expected results from what was agreed in Copenhagen. In Copenhagen, what happened is that these heads of state got together and they constructed a kind of a loose agreement where nations would make some pledges under Copenhagen of something they would do by 2020. Some are doing it. Some are not. It's quite loose. And so just they are it's our expectation of what would take place then take place as a result of that. And then we have the Paris agreement. And we've done a lot of work on trying to understand what people are likely to do. And we have information about these indicated national development contributions that have been submitted and then analyze that to 2040. And the question is, are we going to turn the corner? And we looked at various expected measures that people would use by group by group I mean between developed the G20 and the rest of the world. Work on what would happen with regard to coal. These are the major emitting areas coal and renewables. Looking at what measures people are likely to be taking in transport on mileage standards and trucks and the like household subs these are the various measures that are being they're going to be used things on tropical deforestation various things to reduce methane. And then we take account of the of the take account of the of the the indicated contributions that have already been submitted to the framework convention. Now there's an error on this slide. The red dots are the countries that have already submitted their contributions. India has not. So that's a mistake. But you see the countries that have submitted their things to the to the to the convention. And there are separate there are there are countries that in these other aggregate groups that have submitted, but they're not enough to be able to say that we know what the group what the group represents. So when I show you results, I'll show you this is a kind of breakdown we use the developed countries, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, European, Japan, United States, the rest of the G20. You see there Brazil, China, dynamic Asia, India, Mexico, Russia, and then aggregates of the of the rest of the world. And so we in our work make distinctions between the obligations because we think about the measures that we've taken in these different areas by these different groups. But we we try to take account of the different levels of effort that you would expect from these different different nations in different circumstances. And here's what we get. So what we expect from Copenhagen, we say by the red line. And what we see in the in the expected what we see in our expectations, what's already being pledged in Paris and what the what the expectations expectations are, we get the black line, we're not headed there. Now, I don't want this to be too negative a talk because we're achieving a lot. It's not that nothing is happening that in these expect in the in the in the pledges that are being made under this current system, we're getting something, but we're not getting enough to meet what we're not to meet this objective that we that I think is important to at least stop the growth of emissions by by by 2040. So why what's happening here? What is in this projection? But this is sure our expectations other people could do other analysis to get somewhat different results. But I think this represents the task that the that the globe faces developed countries are of course reducing over time. The other G20, we expect to be roughly constant to 2040. China has pledged to stabilize emissions, roughly about 2025 to 2030. And you see that here, India is is is growing. We expect India is going to grow substantially. And then you have this growth from the rest of the world. Now, even even to achieve this result, we need the first of my what I think is the major achievements we have to have in Paris, which is a credible review system, which is not yet achieved achieved yet. But that's that's the first thing I'll say that's my emphasis. What the second thing we need is we need in Paris, a the agreement and the establishment of a system of cycles where we where we where we don't wait too long before we think about moving to the next stage of commitment, next stage of contributions and the like, we need to move to a system of regular cycles over time, five year or 10 year cycles to tighten the system. That was tried under Kyoto. It didn't work. The notion of Kyoto was that after the initial companies made these national commitments that they would tighten the commitments and other people would join the system didn't work. That has to be created to work here. And so that's the second thing that we need in in in in Paris. And then then there's then there's to achieve that clearly, everybody needs to do more. So I don't want to I don't want to be clear that the developed countries and the other G 20 and China and these others have to do more to achieve that. We can't stick with what we think we're going to get in Paris. It is the first step of a process. But we can't deal with just that. Because a lot of what's taking place to 2020 is the growth in these countries by this projection, which is our expectation, Africa will be 20 Africa alone will be will be roughly two thirds the emissions of what is now two thirds of the then developed countries and much more than United States or Europe individually. And of course, India will be that be that scale. And so the the major a major pressure and a major task going forward is to deal with the emissions where the where the emissions growth is, which is in these, which is in these countries. And and the question, the question I frame frame first question I frame here is, what does this mean for mapping of of of development economics? There's, there's a lot going to be a lot of pressure to deal with these to deal with emissions in these in these developing in these developing areas. And I just point out, as I've sat in this meeting, over the over and over, we talk about the need for development of infrastructure. And most of that discussion about the heavy investment infrastructure, where is it? It's in the power system. And it's in the transport system. And if you ask me, where are the major emissions growth? It's in the power system, and then the transport system. And so there's going to be there's going to be there's going to be pressure on the financial systems that are that are that are that are going to be used to achieve these these these growth objectives. And, and there are two worlds going forward. There's the there's the there's the the sustainable, the sustainable growth objectives, they've had this meeting coming up on on the new sustainable goals. And it's even sometimes the same diplomats. You have that system on sustainable development, and you have this system on lowering emissions. And what the relationship is between between those two, in the financial in the financial overseas development assistance and international aid and foreign direct investment and like how that's going to work. I don't think we know. But it's very important in thinking about what the what the map is that we're dealing with. Most of these most of this is in most of these a lot of these countries in this group have are beginning to make commitments. But but but this comes to my main by third main point. They're making commitments that are conditional commitments. And this is again has to do with with with a notion of of common but differentiated responsibilities. The Algeria says, Yes, we will commit conditional on external assistance. And Columbia says yes, but conditional on the provision of favorable and predictable, predictable support. And Ethiopia says yes, conditional upon international support that enables investments in Kenya. These are all submissions to the United Nations. This is subject to international support in the form of of finance. And we don't have the commitment, we don't have the statement from India into the framework convention. But but but in using India's statements by the by the government officials in advance of that all make this point that we do we we can we can help but we have to have the financial assistance to do that. And one of the one of the issues that is going to come up is the $100 billion that we talked about $100 billion a year by 2020. Well, it's extremely difficult, maybe impossible and too little. So that that problem is once again kind of coming to the squeeze on the on the on finance, which is going to which has to be thought with which we need to think through what what are the implications of that in terms of the other financial issues that we talk about in this meeting for driving development and generally in in these in these countries. And and now and and so that the keys to a successful launch in my view are a credible and timely review process, which is going to be hard to do durable cycles of increased effort, which is a follow on process that needs to be established. And and we need we need the structure, at least to support finance for these for these conditional pledges. If we don't do that, if we can't achieve these, then then I think that the that we will blow past, we will blow past 2040 with with growing with growing emissions, growing emissions. Now, one final one final thought, everything I've said has to do with with with the implications for development finance and for development strategy and for development economics of the effort to control greenhouse gas emissions and the pressure that's going to come out of the developed countries on the developing countries to do something about it. I just want to point out that, based on our expectations, we're going to see quite a bit of climate change, we aren't going to limit to two degrees C. And another aspect which I think needs to be on the on on the table in in in I know it's part a lot of wider is doing a lot of work on this but it didn't show up so much in this meeting is is more attention to vulnerable more attention to vulnerability to to resilience to adaptation, because these things are coming. And on the horizon of this meeting, the much talk much talk in the media 2020 2030 2040 in terms of development strategies, these development strategies need to begin to take more account of what are what are the what are the what are the external conditions in the environment as it may influence coastal cities, agriculture, and the like. So I've learned a lot in this meeting, since I'm a climate person and not a development person, but I go away with several puzzles of how do these how are these systems of development finance and control of the climate going to get get integrated in a way that's not mutually destructive because we are mapping the road. But I say that down the road with a dark forest down the road that I don't think is getting sufficient attention. Thank you.