Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, and a very cordial welcome to this opening session of our Social Development Impact Summit. It is devoted to the theme, The Great Reset. And you have seen in the short movie, the wealth and the breadth of issues which will be discussed in a very impact-oriented manner during this meeting. I want to thank the co-chairs and the panelists of this opening session for being with us. And I want to thank particularly President Yooka for your presence today because there's a long friendship with your country and the World Economic Forum, but also you are serving as a role model for being really a forward-looking leader. It's a very large audience participating in this meeting. We have over 3,000 participants from over 130 countries. And of course, to do justice to the complexities of issues, we will have over 60 different sessions. I want to thank the organizing committee in the World Economic Forum, particularly Terry Toyota, for her engagement and for her strong work. We will have exciting moments over the next days. I'm looking very much forward to those and I wish you a very good meeting, but before we start the meeting, I just want to recall the five pillars which we want to address. First, shared prosperity. Second, catalyzing cooperation. Cooperation is so important, particularly public-private cooperation today to address all the issues which we face. Better business. What can we do in order to implement the stakeholder concept? For harnessing technology, we have all the new technologies of the forced industrial revolution. How can we use them best in terms of providing a human-centered approach to technological development and finally, maybe most urgent at the moment, livable planet. So again, thank you and I have now the great honor to introduce the remarks of His Majesty, King Abdullah of Chobh. Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Your excellencies, dear friends, I am delighted to help launch this much-needed discussion at such a crucial time. And I thank my dear friend, Professor Schwab, for his dedication to bringing about positive change in our world. Indeed, real sustainable development that is truly felt by all peoples has perhaps never been more needed than it is today to help us overcome the COVID-19 crisis and its humanitarian and economic ramifications which will continue well beyond this pandemic. Striking all countries at an unprecedented universal scale, this crisis should also be seen as an opportunity for all of us if we act decisively and act together. We must begin by rethinking our entire global system to become more integrated, resilient and just. A globalized world cannot thrive by leaving its most vulnerable communities behind. We are all in this together, and the sooner we realize it, the better. Rebuilding our international system towards a more inclusive economic recovery starts from the ground up through mutually beneficial bilateral, trilateral and regional partnerships that form a global safety net to alleviate poverty and unemployment, bolster food security and safeguard our environment. We in Jordan have been working with our partners in the region and beyond to invest in the strengths and resources of each one of us and build complementarities for the shared prosperity of our world and the well-being of our peoples. The COVID-19 crisis has led Jordan to invest in its agricultural, ICT, medical and pharmaceutical capabilities in partnership with the private sector to help ourselves and others. And we are ready to build on this potential to become a launchpad and a regional hub that facilitates international and regional efforts to respond to the challenges ahead. My friends, this pandemic and its long-term consequences have exasperated the long-standing crisis in our world. The climate crisis, poverty, hunger, unemployment and social economic inequalities have worsened after years of ineffective collective action. The way forward must be rooted in a re-globalization that fortifies the building blocks of our international community by enabling our countries to strike a balance between self-reliance and positive interdependence, enabling us all to jointly mount a holistic response to all crises facing our world. A response that strengthens our global economy but also addresses inequalities. A response that leads to technological and industrial progress but also ensures the sustainability of our shared environment. So in your discussions today and in the days ahead, instead of looking at problems to solve, I urge you to look at opportunities to seize and ways to collaborate, to rebuild a truly global inclusive system that leaves no one behind. I wish you a fruitful summit. Thank you. Hello, everyone. I'm Karen Cho, anchor for Squawk Box Europe from CNBC. Let me first start off by thanking His Majesty, the King of Jordan and Professor Schwab for their opening remarks and formally kick off this first session of the Sustainable Development Impact Summit. Well, life has certainly changed from the series of global meetings. Many of us would normally attend to these virtual summits and this one obviously being a key one as we stay on track for key agendas. Now, there is a silver lining to this virtual world we're living in, just one out there. And that is that instead of hundreds of people attending this summit, we now have thousands. So we welcome all of you today and appreciate the time you're dedicating to this session. Well, we've caused this moment the great reset. Let me give you some context for the discussion we'll be having for the next 50 odd minutes or so. The COVID-19 pandemic has wrecked havoc on societies and economies that Delta may just set back in achieving the 2030 agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement. Under the theme of realizing a great reset for sustainable development, the agenda is framed around five thematic pillars. Professor Schwab just mentioned them, but let me highlight them again. Shed prosperity, catalyzing cooperation, better business, harnessing technology, liveable planet. The summit co-chairs and STG champions will be sharing their own inspiring stories, commitments, struggles as they address these five pillars. The objective is for all of us to challenge ourselves to ask the question, what more can I do? What have I not thought about as we try and seek momentum in that countdown to 2030? We'll be asking the panelists to react to each other's comments for our speakers to react to questions from the audience and to try to implement some of the initiatives today elsewhere in society. We're aiming to keep this conversation as dynamic as possible. So I'll urge again all of our panelists to get involved in this conversation as we try and challenge the narrative and contribute to as many points raised. This is not a passive audience as well. We urge you to send questions on Slido that is the platform we're using today. It is Slido.com if you've not used it. And just a reminder, you can enter the event code hashtag SDIS. So where possible, we will take questions throughout this session, but we will be particularly dedicating a common session towards the end of this forum. But let's begin as I introduce you to our panelists. Ivan Durkey, who is the president of Columbia, elected in 2018. Durkey become Columbia's youngest president. He has many strings to his bow as a politician, lawyer and author. As a senator, he played an instrumental role in key legislation to develop the creative industries and culture, unemployment law and rules to extend, maternity leave to 18 weeks. Anushka Retnayaka, who is founder and CEO of Myagro and young global leader. Anushka's mission is to move small farmers out of poverty and has spent more than a decade working in rural Africa, helping to increase food security and market access for small scale farms. Her current goal is to increase the incomes of one million smallholder farms by $1.50 a day by 2025. Grace Forrest, founding director, Walk Free. Grace has spent extensive time in Southeast Asia and the Middle East using photography and storytelling to convey the plight of survivors of modern slavery and regularly represents Walk Free at international events of the UN and Vatican. She's the UN Association of Australia's youngest ever Goodwill Ambassador for Anti-Slavery. Elaine Bijoni, who is CEO of Majid Al Fatem. He was appointed CEO of the sprawling Emirati hoarding company in 2015, which includes shopping malls, retail and leisure establishments in the Middle East and North Africa with operations in 13 countries. Elaine is credited with transforming the group's operating model, giving it purpose and vision. And our final panelist today, Rebecca Masayuk, who is CEO of TechSoup Global. Rebecca joined TechSoup in 2001 and set about launching a program to donate technology products and social enterprise. It now serves an NGO audience in 236 countries and territories. TechSoup has connected change makers around the world to more than $13.5 billion worth of technology products and capacity building services. So as you can see, very wide experience and certainly touching on all of these five pillars that we are speaking to today. Well, let me first come to President Deke or you are the co-chair for catalyzing cooperation pillar. So let me ask you, as this pandemic has dealt a major setback to achieving the 2013 agenda. Global cooperation was already under threat before this crisis and in many ways it's worsened in the months still. What do you think are the biggest challenges to achieve effective global cooperation on the sustainable development agenda as we battle a major health and economic crisis? Well, thank you so much, Karen, for your question. It's a great honor to be here in this panel. I also want to express the honor that it is for me to share with this distinguished group and I also express my gratitude to Professor Schwab for the invitation. I also express my gratitude to King Abdullah to join us this morning. And essentially, I think the challenges that we have before us are very clear. On the one hand, I think this pandemic has showed that all of us have to embrace this cost not only to reduce our individual footprint in terms of CO2, but I think we all should be aware on how to mitigate the challenges that evolve from climate change. So I would say first challenge is that we need to keep on accelerating the energy transition around the world. Energy transition is going to be pivotal. And when we look at the case of Colombia, we only contribute with 0.4% of the CO2 emissions but we want to embrace this cost as if we were the number one emitter. And that means that we are going to expand by more than 10 times the install capacity of non-commissioned renewable energies in Colombia and we're leading the energy transition in Latin America so that we can have 70% of the original matrix with renewable energies. That's one. Second challenge, I think, is the fight against deforestation. Deforestation has a tremendous impact worldwide and in Latin America, we should do something even stronger. We have been able, in the case of Colombia, to reduce by 90% the deforestation rate in the last two years but we have to make it the leticia pact which is the pact to protect the Amazon that was signed by eight presidents of the Amazon basin in Latin America so that we can ensure that we will have clear objectives not only to reduce the deforestation rate but also to reforest and protect the areas. Primarily because a country like Colombia has 35% of its soil in the Amazon basin. When we look at the amount of hectares and square kilometers that we have in Latin America, we're talking about more than five million square kilometers so it is a very important cost. The third element is clear transportation. We believe the world needs to move faster by having more electric vehicles in the road. We want to make that also consistent with the development of non-conventional renewables. We issued in the case of Colombia the clean transportation bill and we hope that we can expand by five times the card part in the next 10 years so it's going to have a tremendous contribution. I should highlight the circular economy policy which I think it's a way in which corporations can actively participate and that means produce conserving and conserve producing as a mantra. And it is important that we develop what I consider is the ethics of the 21st century so that citizens around the world are conscious about the three R's, reduce, reduce, recycle and so that we can reduce the individual footprint. And last but not least, there's something that we want to lead and that's why we're working hand-in-hand with the web and it's the concept of biodiversity. How cities can actively contribute to the protection of biodiversity around the world. So on that scope, on the one hand we want to develop the one trillion trees initiative that was launched last year by web. In the case of Colombia, we want to contribute with 180 million trees that are going to be planted from now to August 2022. We are reaching the objective of maybe 50 million trees planted by the end of this year which has also happened in the midst of this pandemic but also we need the cities to contribute in ways to energy programs and reforestation. And we also want cities to be conscient about the protection of the Paramos or what we call high altitude ecosystems. Colombia hosts 50% of the world Paramos. It is a source of clean water and we want the whole world to participate not only putting resources but finding nature-based solutions with communities. So I consider those are very important challenges are challenges that we must all embrace and I'm very happy that with the web and being now in our case, the co-chairs of the Sustainable Development Board, we really want cities and countries to embrace these elements. If we embrace these elements, I think we're going to have a strong contribution not only to protect the environment but to have a clear result in the upcoming years when it comes to reduce the CO2 emissions and the individual footprint. President, thank you very much for the comments. Anushka may come to you next as the co-chair of the Librable Planet Pillar and effectively Myagro helps small scale farmers access finance. Farmers who play a major role in food security in Africa but among the poorest in society, you've used mobile banking to improve financing and shared knowledge in agriculture techniques to increase yields by 50% which is just extraordinary. Perhaps you can share an example with us about how you brought about that change. Sure, thank you. And thank you everyone for having me here today. It's really an honor to share what we do at Myagro and I truly agree, Karen, farmers are at the heart of having a livable planet. They grow the food that we eat, usually for razor thin margins and most smallholder farmers globally live in poverty. And we all know it's not a secret that farmers need tools to adapt to outdated agricultural practices given climate change. And until now, most of that change has been pushed by the consumer but to truly reset this change needs to come and start from the farmers and we can help support them to do that by deeply listening. And that's how I got the idea for Myagro over 10 years ago. I was working in a microfinance organization in rural Kenya and I was trying to collect repayments which is really hard because farmers don't have a monthly salary. And in that process of listening to farmers and going to visit them every day, I started to hear this pattern where farmers would say things like, I really like this loan but can I over repay my loan for next year's loan? Or they would say things like, oh, I really like your organization can I have a loan for a cow? What I really need to improve my harvest is our assets like cows but I'll pay you for two years before getting the loan. So it's interesting they were using the language of credit but what they were actually describing if we truly listened to them was a savings product. Farmers knew that they had money throughout the year. It might be in small increments as small as a few dollars but they needed a reliable place where they could lay away that money little by little to make large investments in their farms that could be catalytic that could change the trajectory for their family. And so that's what my agro did at a time where the only solution farmers people were thinking about in the development community was how do we extend credit to farmers? We actually created a new system of what you call it digital mobile layaway where farmers can pay on their own for the seeds and fertilizer they need to invest sustainably in their farms so that they can grow enough food for their communities. And so I think that's the key to this great reset that Professor Schwab talked about. How do we listen to the people closest to the problem? And through partnership with them, with private sector, with government to create solutions that can truly reset to help us reach the SDGs. Nishka, just quickly if I can follow up how are the farmers that you work with being impacted by COVID-19 and is there a support role for more of us to consider? Yeah, I think absolutely they're impacted particularly in countries where we work where governments created restrictions on travel or closed weekly markets which is the main way that farmers earn money during the dry season. So there was a lot of hesitance to spend money and to make investments in their farm. And so I think in the next coming six to 12 months food security is going to be our biggest crisis even maybe even ahead of COVID. And so I think governments and organizations that support smallholder farmers really need to come together in partnership to think how to do things differently to support farmers to help increase their risk tolerance to create a cushion for them to ensure that they can still make investments that will feed them and our communities. Nishka, thank you. Grace, let's come to you and you'll work with the Walk Free Initiative. I wanna just get to some of the changes you've already brought about. You've managed to change legislation. You've encouraged the church and religious leaders to throw their weight behind your drive to end modern slavery. I wanna talk a little bit about your work and perhaps why the pandemic has also increased the challenges that you see out there. Thank you so much, Kara. And I think I'd like to first start by establishing the problem because so few people understand the scale of slavery that exists with us today in the 21st century. So we know that one out of every 200 people on earth are currently living in modern slavery. That's more than any other time in human history and actually double the number of those living in slavery in the time of the transatlantic slave trade. The interconnectivity of that trade and slavery now is still there, however, through racism and inequality which still sets a roadblock for so many people to reach sustainable development throughout the world. Slavery is a term which encompasses a number of highly involved practices but today I'm gonna focus on two, forced labor and forced marriage. And I think the opportunity to build back better to have the great reset, it speaks specifically to business because supply chains have been built in a normalized way on the exploitation of many, many people. And yes, the pandemic has absolutely exacerbated that crisis. I think nowhere is this more apparent than the treatment of migrant workers. There are entire systems built to keep people in slavery and to keep people exploited, such as the Kavala system. And equally what we've seen as the result of COVID-19 is millions of workers trapped overseas, not captured in national health plans, not paid for their work, allowing many more millions of families back home to go without food. This is a problem that happens all over the world and many people think of the global south when this comes to mind. However, in the UK just a few months ago there was a major fast fashion company found paying workers half the minimum wage being forced to work through lockdown with no PPE. This normalized exploitation needs to change. It is not acceptable that any of us should be able to buy anything that harmed another human being in the process. Yet it is the norm in the clothes we wear, the food we eat, and the technology in which we speak today. Great. So I'll just pick up on that point as you single out a fast fashion business here in the UK that canceled some of its orders. Clearly a number of businesses in a very similar situation, they need to manage the demand side and manage supply because demand has fallen so aggressively in this crisis. What do you recommend? What do you encourage them to do in terms of stepping up to ensure they have a role in society to support those workers and suppliers for the future? The way supply chains are currently built is that when a crisis hits, the one right now is COVID-19, but another one will hit again in the future whether it's a natural disaster or another pandemic. The first people who are hit are the people at the front. Those who are vulnerable, those who are already usually not paid a living wage as a nurse has spoke to, already living in poverty to grow the food we eat to make the clothes that we wear. And in a situation of crisis, instead of those at the top, protected by huge corporations and very large paychecks, taking the brunt of that hit, it is those on the front line who take it first. And that is simply unacceptable. But it's not only unacceptable from a human rights perspective. From an economic one, it is completely unsustainable. As we saw supply chains come to a grinding halt in the peak of this crisis, the mad rush to acquire PPE globally, it's not a mistake that we can't acquire things in a rush that aren't made fairly. It's not a mistake that much of the PPE that was acquired globally will end up in the ocean. The system has been built that way. The system has been built for convenience over anything else. And it's time that we create a human centric one, of course, because it's the right thing to do, but also because it's the smart thing to do. And this comes down to basic accountability and transparency across national and international supply chains. Grace, thank you very much for that, Alayne. I want to come to you as I introduced you earlier. I mentioned that you were instrumental in rethinking your entire organization, how it operates, but you've also been very vocal on how the Middle East catches up on climate change. Now as we talk about this great reset for many businesses, the theme of the summit too, realizing a great reset for sustainable development, how should businesses be run at this stage to maximize this great reset? Thank you. Thank you, Karen, and thank you for having me. You know, the words that I just heard from Anushka and Grace are quite inspiring. And it actually reminds me of the work that we do day in, day out with the farmers in Kenya or the impact that our business has across the region and our industries throughout the world. The reality is we can't run business as usual in what used to be called business as usual. Today, we've seen this through COVID and we're going to see it even more afterwards to what Grace said, supply chains were built to be efficient, irrespective of the cost that they have locally. And I'll give you an example. One of our businesses is grocery retail, our platform business in the region. And one of the big things that we pride ourselves to do is the fact that we partnered with local farmers. I see that Anushka is smiling. We partnered with local farmers in most of the countries that you operate in order to localize our supply chain. And really our aim there is to do two things. One is locally sourced, but also allow people to reinvest in their business to stay in their lands, in their villages and be able to actually have clarity on their cash flows coming forward. What people want is not difficult, is not impossible, is not absurd. What they want is logic, is basic, basic equitable economic relations where actually businesses pay on time and actually give them a fair return for the investment that they are doing. This is something that is extremely important for us, but this is really a base of what we do across the supply chains that we have across all of our businesses. Businesses have today a very important role in changing the world to a better place. And I think the great reset that Professor Schwab has talked about is a fantastic opportunity that you have to rebuild it in an equitable, inclusive and sustainable manner. Majid Al-Futaym has, for example, one of the things that we, the first thing that we did was actually to commit for a net positive strategy on water and carbon by 2014. But also to make sure that we are ESG rated and that we actually paved the way for green financing and also make sure that we are contributing to the sustainability of the environments and the communities that you operate in going, implementing and say, walking the talk on stakeholder capitalism. This is something that is not anymore an option. This is something that's actually necessary. And in this context, I think the work that the IBC is doing on ESG, whether it's adopting a framework that is relatively simplified that people can understand or the metrics is extremely important. Disclosure by corporates and by businesses is very important because this is how we can all get to two things. One, an equal playing field. So people really can invest their money in green projects where actually it matters to them how do they make their profits. But also you have the ability to make sure that you are driving the business and you are doing well by doing right. And this is something that is extremely important for businesses today. It's not an option anymore. I think COVID has been, yes, as you said when you started it really has disrupted and that havoc in everything that's happening around us but it also opened our eyes on the fragility of the world that you operate in. We've been talking for quite some time, how can we harness technology? How can we get the planet to a more liveable state? I still remember one of the World Economic Forum's themes a few years back which is responsive and responsible leadership. We've seen that the lack of all of that got us to a situation that we would have never thought possible. And our ability to work together, take this, turn this into an opportunity, going back to what his Majesty Abdullah said how can we actually grab this opportunity to make something out of it and to build a better world is something that for me should be top priority for all corporates, whether it's in the region here in the Middle East but globally as well. I want to dig a little bit deeper in a moment but first up, let me come to Rebecca because you've been working for close to 20 years on ensuring vulnerable parts of society are not left behind by the technology revolution. Now in this crisis, this current crisis certainly fears have escalated about societal divisions widening because of lack of access to technology. How would you describe the challenge right now versus what you've witnessed over the past couple of decades? Well, thank you very much to Professor Schwab and the World Economic Forum as well as His Majesty the King of Jordan and all of the distinguished panelists and guests who have tuned in for this. This is quite an opportunity to bring a civil society perspective to these important discussions and I'm excited about that. To realize a great reset, we must be willing to include and engage grassroots civil society in shaping and driving the collective action needed toward the global goals. Simply giving them a voice isn't enough. They must be an equal stakeholder to business and governments, an equal stakeholder in the stakeholder capitalism vision. Grassroots civil society is large and diverse. In many countries, it represents 2% to 5% of GDP and globally is made up of an estimated 12 million organizations contributing nearly $4 trillion to the global economy. This sector knows so much about what is and is not effective in development.  Their relationships and methodologies offer significant contributions alongside public-private partnerships. There are 250 million people working in this sector to bring and they bring unique capabilities. They're deeply connected to the very values and the ideals embodied in the great reset and the global goals. We have an opportunity to make the assets of grassroots civil society more visible and more connected to important fora like this. Bill Gates has talked about the wide availability of digital technology that allows sharing of information and global collaboration as being a critical factor in the speed of innovation. But digital technologies simply are not yet widely available to civil society at the grassroots level. We must invest in the necessary infrastructure for innovation. We need to support civil society workers and their communities in making all they know available to each other, to governments, to business, so that the great reset is in fact a reset and is in fact improving both justice and opportunity for all. TechSoup itself was founded as a grassroots organization and nonprofit with a $2,500 grant and a mission to bring tech mentors to other grassroots organizations. Through robust partnerships with more than 100 technology companies, the use of technology as an enabler and the establishment of a global network of more than 60 independent NGOs, TechSoup has scaled as a value space marketplace to deliver more than $14 billion in technology and capacity building resources to over a million civil society organizations. This past year alone during the pandemic we distributed $1.5 billion in resources as tens of thousands of organizations moved to remote work where that was possible. In a single month, 41,000 nonprofit learners enrolled in our online remote working and security course, for example. We've all seen this year just how interconnected and fragile our complex systems are. It is my fervent hope that we will create a great reset that will strive to overcome systemic injustice. An inclusive approach to the great reset and to sustainable development will reach significantly better collective outcomes in the future and it will enable innovation in places and from people with ideas that have not been expressed anywhere else. Thank you. Rebecca, thank you very much for the comments. Elaine, I did promise to come back to you and I wanna pick up on this moment because I was looking at all the initiatives you've been involved in trying to encourage some of your customers to cut back on water consumption to save water. There was an education campaign that you ran but clearly fewer people coming into some of the retail areas. So it's hard to communicate that program also in terms of rewarding green shoppers initiatives that you worked with some of the retailers on. But as life changes and even for your own business that was doing particularly well, it's been hit by this crisis. How do you stay on track and how do you manage to reinvent your way out of this pandemic? So I would say two things. One is there's always an opportunity in every situation. I think COVID also presents a lot of opportunities. We've never been as connected with our customers digitally and I think this is something that we have been able to really capitalize on. That's number one. Number two, we've done two things the campaigns that you mentioned but also a pledge to actually ban totally banned plastic by 2025 in all of our operation across our 17 markets. Now, of course this year was a great in a way because of the lack of business a great way to reduce plastic but the point is how do we keep that going? And that also gave us a big opportunity to rethink packaging, to rethink how do we actually interact with our customers and make sure that we provide more sustainability sustainable, sorry, ways of servicing our customers. I have to say that our customers in general are much more aware of the importance of it and there has been kind of a fast tracking of the awareness and understanding that we are capitalizing on. That also includes, for example how can we reduce the carbon footprint by developing more and more vertical farming in our stores in order not to transport and order to minimize all the supply chain and all the emissions that come from transportation packaging, et cetera, et cetera. So the pandemic has accelerated this need of more anchored life or of lives anchored around neighborhoods because it's safer because people acknowledge and recognize what's happening there and they feel that they are in a more safer environment and we have responded to that with true technology in order to do better business but also to serve our customers better. So all of these initiatives given the diversity of our businesses we feel that you're in privileged position to be able to tackle them from different aspects and different standpoints. And this is something that's extremely important. You mentioned the green start rating initiatives that you have with our tenants across all of our shopping centers where we have around more than 3,000 of them where we actually support them in managing their resources, in managing down resources, waste, et cetera in order to make sure that we live up to our commitment that all of our assets, our shopping centers, hotels, et cetera, offices are all environmentally friendly building and they have a lead or a green certification but that's not something we can do alone. It's something we have to do in partnership with our tenants.  So we've put in in place frameworks and mattresses to support them incentivize them because it's a win-win situation at the end of the day. I just remind our panelists too, you can jump in and get involved if there's something you would like to respond to. But in the meantime, I'll come back to President Duque. I wanna ask you a very similar question but at a government level around Columbia because your country's fortunes have changed along with many others during the coronavirus crisis once one of the fastest growing nations in Latin America beforehand now expected to contract around 6% so far this year. At the same time, you have a migrant crisis on your doorstep, five million Venezuelans have left their country in the past five years. So I'm wondering, President, where this leaves the green agenda, is there a role for government to continue to step up the fight towards some of these targets as businesses themselves are challenged trying to achieve the same level of commitment? Oh Karen, I like your question a lot because in fact, yes, we started the year when we look at the growth in January and February we were growing above 4%. And then we had to struggle with the pandemic and we decided to make the decision to protect lives to protect the health system to reduce the exponential level of growth of the pandemic and for us to adjust. And I would say that in this last five months we have been able, first of all to expand our ICU capacity duplicating it. We started with 5,300 ICU capacity or units and now we have more than 10,000. Then the other hand, when we look about debts per million, contagions per million we have also, I think, behaved better in comparison to other places in the world with higher income per capita. But at the same time, we started a process so that we can regain productive lives since April. And when we made the last decision in early September of a new model of social distancing we basically had 90% of the economy running. Now we need to reactivate and we need to do it responsibly. But what is important about your question is that we have not led the green agenda behind. We obviously know that we are struggling with a migration crisis in Latin America primarily because we have 1.8 million Venezuelan brothers and sisters that have fled the country because of the effects of the dictatorship. And we have been able to try to manage that presence in Colombia with fraternity but obviously the situation is unsustainably and primarily because we know this dictatorship is linked with crimes against humanity as was denounced last week by the UN. Now on the green agenda, we have not left it behind. We haven't even accelerated anymore. When so when we think about the concept of the Great Reset, we are even accelerating more the energy transition. And in the recovery plan that we announced in July when I had the State of the Union equivalent address what I said is we're going to make the biggest expansion of renewable energies by 2022. And that means we're going to pass from having 0.1% of the energy matrix in our conventional renewables to get to 10% by the end of my term. But we also launched the program of Biodiverse Cities so that we get the cities more involved in the protection of biodiversity. And we consider this as another engine of the recovery. We made a clear statement that on the one trillion trees initiative that was launched last year by Professor Schwarz and we said, Colombia wants to be there with 180 million trees. We're going to reach 50 million by the end of the year but we continue that with nature-based solutions and the payment for environmental services for peasants. We're going to get them involved and they're going to participate actively in their recovery. The same thing is happening with clean transportation and something that is very important Karen. And I think it also is connected with the wonderful things that I've heard from the panelists and is we need to think about how we can connect protecting the environment with this social agenda. And when we think about reducing the individual footprint, I think we're seeing now that a virtual education having less business travel but being more efficient in the way we produce results. And at the same time, looking at technology solutions that can reduce the amount of cash in the streets, they all have a positive impact in the environment of footprint. So I think the concept of the Great Reset is it's a message that we all get so that we can balance our attitudes and policies so that we keep on thinking on growing but growing in a sustainable way, in a cleaner way and obviously in a more humane way. I was listening carefully to all the messages that we heard and thinking about big corporations, thinking about eradicating slavery or forms of slavery around the world. And at the same time connecting businesses to be more responsible in the way they have their products and the way they approach the client so that the kind can be militants on a sustainable agenda. I think are the processes that we want to accelerate in Colombia. So in a nutshell, yes, the challenge is big but we are not leaving none of the green agenda behind. And President, thank you. And that actually leads us over to Grace. I want to come to you on, actually someone I met on the sidelines of WEF at the World Economic Forum early this year who tweets me virtually every day about slavery and supply chains, modern supply chains run by many famous corporates. You asked the question, how is this still happening in this day and age with all of the power of social media? How can this still be happening behind the scenes? What do you want to see happen this year and in coming years so that we actually genuinely have change? Well, they were just such wonderful points made by the president just now because the interconnectivity of social wellbeing and environmental safety, they truly go hand in hand. And I think in this great reset, we need to be very honest about the fact that we cannot keep moving forward while so many people are constantly held back. And the thing is when it comes to business that the reality is that slavery is a normalized part of the supply chain convenience at any cost. And the truth is the cost often comes at someone's most basic freedom or even life. Last year in July, we actually estimated that in order to reach the STG's goal for 2030 to end slavery, we would have to free 10,000 people a day from now until then in order to reach that goal as well as dismantling all the core drivers. And these numbers I can say quite scarily are conservative because this is pre COVID-19 exacerbation. But what I can also tell you is that for the first time since Watbury was established 10 years ago, I can see an opportunity to move on the scale that is necessary to reach that change. And the point that was made earlier about legislation, it's so critical and there are such huge gaps in this area. The quickest way anyone can give up our power is not realizing how much of it we have. And in a legal sense, there are only two nations in the world that have a modern slavery act, which is legislation that requires businesses of certain size to disclose on issues of slavery within their supply chains. What it has caused within those two countries alone and only the UK and Australia is greater public awareness of this issue, greater boardroom care about this problem and hopefully a higher level of transparency over time. We need all the world's most powerful nations to have a modern slavery act, to account for exploitation at home as well as in their far reaching global supply chains. Transparency is not everything, but it is the bedrock on which real change can be built. It is the bedrock on which accountability must be made. And the second point I'd make around legislation is that slavery is without a doubt a highly gendered problem. 71% of all victims of modern slavery are women and girls. And one such area, which disproportionately affects women and girls and is in our opinion, a major roadblock to the SDGs is the enablement and continuation of forced and child marriage. Only 51 countries around the world have criminalized forced marriage, leaving 133 falling short. And unless our nations have specific legislation addressing these issues, people will continue to fall between the cracks. Grace, thank you. Next up, I'm going to take a slider question and Rebecca, if I can come to you on this one. Thank you to Phyllis who has written through saying, what are the main methods the WEF and panellists are using to advocate the five pillars to the common person? And how can we help? An interesting question, Rebecca, as we asked that question, how can we help? When I look at your model, you've clearly had a lot of businesses investing, giving grants and loans and that helps. But what can the average person do? Or is the only help really going to come from Silicon Valley, big tech and business? Well, I think that we've heard a lot today about local and the need to do things locally. So I think that anyone could have something that they can contribute locally. And that might be because they're working with an organized part of civil society or it could be a board member, they could be volunteering for activities or they could obviously be contributing funding. But also there may be just groups that are more informally organized or mutual aid societies and things like this. I think that this is a time when a lot of people would like to do more, even people who've done a lot in the past. And I think when you put a technology lens on it as our work does, I think that there are a lot of people who know quite a bit about technology that they use in their everyday work perhaps. And they may have those kind of skills to bring not so much even just the skills of deep technology. There are lots of uses of emerging technologies and the more advanced technologies, but there are a number of organizations who simply don't have the most basic tools or the most basic training. They're not secure in their environments. And there are a lot of things like that that people could help with. Anushka, let me pitch the same question to you. You've spoken to us how you're addressing the liberal planet pillar, but what can our panelists, what can our audience and more widely governments and business do to help you? Well, I think as citizens, one of our most fundamental duties is to vote. And so vote for governments that you support, policies that you support that are going to support the great reset, support us creating policies in environment, legislation like Grace mentioned that are going to help us actually reach the SDGs. And I think that's a way that we can all contribute. I've got another question here. I'm gonna pitch this one at Elaine. The question says, how can governments and businesses collaborate to enable a human centric system that protects labor and the environment whilst creating shareholder value? Well, I think it is very simple to do that because it just common sense. I think governments are more and more aware of the importance of doing that and they're more and more aware of the importance of working with the private sector. I think the major roadblock that existed before is the lack of, I would say, the lack of harmony between private sector, public sector and the ability to work together. We talk a lot about PPPs and we talk a lot about frameworks of cooperation between public and private sector when it gets to projects. Well, these are more important infrastructure, social infrastructure and backbone projects that businesses and governments can do together. It is in everyone's best interest to make sure that we actually have the proper social infrastructure that we need in order to tackle the word in the right way going forward. Governments are more aware about that. Businesses are also more aware about that. It takes few businesses to lead by example and also it takes the ability to put in place the right incentives to push people in the right direction. Everyone has seen the fragility of the system that we are living in. I think it's a great opportunity for this great reset in the right place and the economic integration that is needed across all the regions but particularly in this part of the world is extremely important and across industries. So I think we currently have a great backdrop to be able to leap from when it gets to social infrastructure, better business and to create a more inclusive and sustainable world. President, to the next question on slide there, I think perfect for you given the work that you're doing to fight some of the change you were seeing in the Amazon and the comments that you made on biodiverse cities.  How can we adapt and safeguard our communities for this new scenario? Well, I consider that there are many important challenges regarding crimes against the environment that I think we should all highlight. Sometimes we talk about drugs and we always talk about the debate whether there's legalization or prohibition. But let me go even deeper into the debate. It's not just about legalization or about prohibition. The world has some sort of a world consensus against drugs but let's go to the environmental damage. When we think about, for example, cocaine. Cocaine destroys tropical jungle for every hectare of coca that is planted, three hectares of tropical jungle are destroyed. The usage of chemicals for the development of those drugs are really generating a massive damage. And part of the deforestation that we see in Latin America and especially in the tropical jungle is because of this business. So I think we should all be knowledgeable enough that we have to do something against this type of illegal business. Not only because it's bad for health and it's bad for security but it's because it destroys the environment. And the same thing happens with the legal production of the legal development of cattle and the illegal development of the wood industry. So when we raise the Leticia Pact and we get the compromise of eight heads of state from the Amazonic region is because we have to reforest and we have to find nature-based solutions and that we don't have more illegal cattle production or illegal wood production. And this can be a major change if we embrace nature-based solutions and we get the peace and sending, we get the indigenous communities to participate, get a sustainable income and at the same time embrace the ethics of the 21st century where we all have to produce conserving, conserve producing and protect these very important regions around the world. I think we have raised that before the eyes of the presidents. We have a big commitment in objectives but the other thing that is needed is that we can mobilize world resources not only to protect the Amazon basin but to protect the world Paramos and it is a way where companies can even have credits so that in the same manner that they have developed the carbon credits they can buy the credits to protect these very important regions around the world and that can help us mobilize more resources. That's why this week we'll be launching the world Paramos initiative so that we can get funding for corporations to protect clean water sources and very important high-altitude ecosystems around the world. I think if we connect the private sector, the provision of resources, the access to carbon credits but at the same time we involve the indigenous and Aboriginal communities protecting these spots in the world. I think we will do it much better. President, thank you. We are running out of time. We've only got a couple of minutes left but I want to get some takeaway messages. Anushka, if I can come to you first to react to some of the comments that you've heard today, some takeaway messages that you think are particularly relevant for your particular situation. Feel free to weigh in for about a minute or so on what you think you've gleaned from this session. Well, I think it's been really inspiring to hear from my fellow panelists and I think the comment that everyone had in common was that in order to have this really amazing, great reset this opportunity that we have in the face of COVID that we need to focus and include the people who are the most vulnerable and that they really need to be at the heart of any solution that we're putting forward and that really excites me that's the heart of what we do and I think will lead to truly sustainable change. Rebecca, a takeaway message from you is something that you've gleaned from this session but also something that you may want to leave the audience to think about. Well, I really heard human-centric, local, frontline, cities, neighborhoods, inclusivity. And so I think that this is really at the heart as was stated by Anushka, what is needed here for the reset but I also want to say that harnessing technology is one of the keys to doing that involving civil society, making them stronger is also one of the ways to do it. So I just hope that we won't waste this opportunity because it's been a very difficult time for so many and I think that this is just a giant opportunity for us to be better as we go forward. And Grace, can we hear from you? Rebecca, I couldn't agree more with what you just said. This is an opportunity and if the great reset can be anything to us, it is that it's a pause in our current trajectory. And history will remember how we use that opportunity to hear and record whether or not we chose to continue despite all the facts of what we need to fix it. And also I want to champion what Anushka said about voting. It is such a privilege to vote and every single one of us is to do it like our lives depend on it. And I don't just mean voting for political leaders, I also mean voting with your dollars. Vote for businesses that align with your values because money talks and every single person can do that as a consumer. Lastly, I think the message I'd leave everyone with is that business can and should become accountable for every person within their supply chain protecting the people at the front and not just the people at the top. And equally that all legal roadblocks to women and girls to fully participate must now be removed. It is the only way that we will reach the SDGs by 2030. Elaine, we've got about 30 seconds. Over to you. I would build on everything that was said that just add timely. I think the time is absolutely opportune and this great reset is really in our hand. It's about what we do. I agree with Grace. It's about actually voting, voting not just on the election day but voting with your action and voting with your money as well and making sure that you vote the talk and you put your money where your mouth is. It is a fantastic opportunity that you have ahead of us and it's all in our hands. President, finally, something that captured your attention and a message you'd like to leave with our panellists and audience today. It has been a great honor for me to see this great panel. And I think if I may summarize it in a way, I think the great reset leaves us with the message that we have to find more humane solution. We've talked about technology. We've talked about business sector. We've talked about finance labor. We've talked about sustainability. But I think at the end, it all summarizes that the great reset is how do we have an approach that is more humane and that individually speaking and in the ethics that everyone has to embrace in the 21st century, we have to acknowledge that whether it's technology, whether it is with entrepreneurship, whether it is through governments, we all have to put the human being at the center. And that means the human being has to be more conscious about how to reduce the individual, environmental, or CO2 footprint. And at the same time, how that it can all participate in building everlasting sustainable solutions for nature and for society. President Duque, Anushka, Grace, Elaine and Rebecca, thank you all for your contribution today and to our audience for joining us. Just a quick note, you can react and also make some more comments on all the social media channels. Also, this broadcast is available on top link. But a big thank you to the World Economic Forum for coordinating this summer today and also to Professor Schwab for his leadership on many of these important issues. Thank you so much for joining us.


We're ahead of schedules, likely. We're going to do a little bit on free energy today. That part will not be on the exam, however. And then we shall review. We'll throw up problems and we'll look at them and we'll do them. The other thing you should review is any problem on the last exam. Because if that same problem comes back and you club it again, it looks bad. Especially if I told you to look at it. And there I am Monday in the afternoon and three people come by and we work out the problems. 297 don't. So all I can assume is you know what you're doing. Make sure you know how to do all the problems on the prior exam. And fast, okay? Not slowly. Fast. Put a stopwatch on it. Pretend you're going to flunk out. If you don't pass, get that problem right. Don't look at the answer. Ready? Go. See how you do. Okay. Free energy. Some review problems. And I guess a cautionary tale, I hope this is the right set. Most reactions that are favorable, in other words, that give mostly products are exothermic. They also produce heat by far the majority. And for a while, it was thought that the reaction being exothermic was a requirement for it being favorable. In other words, that's how you could tell. If it were exothermic, it would be favorable. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be favorable. But that's not true because if you dissolve ammonium nitrate in water, the reaction goes. The ammonium nitrate dissolves and that's a chemical reaction. And the solution gets cold. That means it's endothermic. It's absorbing heat. And there are lots of other examples like that. This one's pretty striking because it's quite a big positive number. And therefore, this discovery forced people to consider as a chemist, you want to make something. How do you tell if the reaction you've written is going to be favorable? If it isn't, if it produces 10 to the minus 6% of products, then that's not going to be a going concern in terms of making something. It turns out that the reaction you write doesn't need to necessarily be favorable on its own as long as you're willing to do work. If you're willing to do work, then you can make it favorable. For example, supposing I have a reaction that produces 10 to the minus 6% of products at equilibrium. If I can take the product out, if I can pump it off, so that the product falls below the equilibrium value, then the reactants make more. And if I keep pumping the products off, the reactants keep making more because the concentration of product is always too low. And so I do a ton of work and I get my product eventually, but it's a ton of work. Where did the work come from? The work came from running another reaction that is favorable, like burning coal. Which makes electricity that runs the pump. And when you consider the coal burning and then your reaction going and you add them up, it's favorable. And that's why you can do it in the end. But there's sometimes a reaction hidden in the background that we don't necessarily see. All right. Someone got caught cheating on sapling. I won't go into details. So I thought we'd have a lesson. In honesty, since on Sunday you may have seen somebody lost their job, some people exaggerate accomplishments. I was the senior manager. I was the senior accountant. I have two degrees. I got my degree a year sooner than I did. I have a higher GPA than is actually true. Scott Thompson resigned as CEO of Yahoo on Sunday. That's kind of a, would have been a nice job to keep. He claimed to have a BS degree in computer science. He had a BS degree in accounting. And on his CV or his resume, he put that he had a BS in accounting and computer science, which may sound a little bit better. But in fact, he did not. He had no such degree. And in the days of public records, that thing is pretty easy to find out pretty quickly. There isn't much cover anymore. People can find out a lot of stuff. Oh, he and five board members who didn't do the right fact checking are gone. They all resigned. Oftentimes people will remember you. By either the best thing you ever did or the worst thing you ever did and everything in between will be forgotten. Make sure they remember you by the best thing you ever did and not remember the guy who resigned the CEO of Yahoo. That's who you become. That's how people remember who you are. Hi, I'm Scott Thompson. Ah, the guy who resigned at this grade. I remember that. I think T.S. Eliot summed this up pretty well in one of his poems. The awful daring of a moment's surrender, which an age of prudence can never retract. Okay, let's get back to our ammonium nitrate. It's the change. Tennis worked out. It's the change in free energy, not just the heat, but the change in free energy that dictates whether a reaction is going to be favorable in terms of giving more products than reactants at equilibrium. Or whether the reaction quote will go at constant temperature and pressure. And G, named after Gibbs, is a state function. And it's partly the heat. That was partly right. And then there's an additional term minus T.S. And S is a little bit more abstract. It's also a state function. And S, the entropy, has to do with the amount of disorder. Whether something is random or whether it is organized. Organized things have very low entropy. Disorganized things have very high entropy. And if we get the G function, the Gibbs function, for both products and reactants, then we can write the change, which is always the final minus the initial. So in this case, it's G of products minus G of reactants. And when G is negative, the reaction is favorable. G rolls downhill. Just like things fall in a gravitational field, chemical reactions or phase transitions start somewhere. And if they can fall down, and that means there has to be a path for them to fall down, sometimes they can be like a boulder jammed in a cliff. They're going to fall down, but not yet. That's us. We're unstable. That's why we die. And you're only at equilibrium when you're dead and gone. And the bacteria have finished munching on your corpse and there's nothing left except minerals. Then you're at equilibrium. The reason we can stay and maintain what we've got is that we consume energy. If we don't eat, then we die. Because we're actually expending a lot of energy to do all the housekeeping to keep everything in order. Why do things happen at all? And the answer is, and I hope you remember the lecture on solutions, we had some spheres on the right and some spheres on the left and we just counted. If they just move around at random and we just look once in a while, what's the chance that they're going to be all on one side? And the answer is the chance is small. And when you have as many molecules as you have in this room, while in principle, they could all suddenly rush to the wall and then we all die of lack of air. We don't fear them because that's so unlikely. It's so unlikely that we discount it. In fact, if we start with a canister of air and the whole rooms of vacuum and we open it up after a while, the pressure is equalized everywhere in the room because the molecules don't have any brains and they just go wherever they go. And therefore, this measure of disorder has to do with probability. It's much more likely to be dead than alive. That's why you end up dead, unfortunately. The metric is that if we have an isolated system, so we don't exchange mass, we don't exchange energy, we just have a closed system. We don't look in, there's no light in there. And we let it sit for a very long time and it comes to equilibrium. Its entropy will have increased. It will have just randomly moved to the most likely state and once it reaches the most likely state, it will just fiddle around there. There'll be some fluctuations. If it's 6 and 6, it might be 5 and 7, but it's only very rarely going to be 1 and 11, for example. And when we have a lot of particles, the chance that it's ever going to do that is so small that we couldn't wait long enough for it to happen. It would be many, many, many times longer than the age of the whole universe. And we can't wait that long for the air to rush over to the other side of the room. And the universe itself is an isolated, I'll put the D on, system. And so for any spontaneous process in the universe, the entropy of the universe must increase.  And the question is, how can we make that more useful? Because we aren't interested in the whole universe. We're interested in the system or we might be interested in our own health and welfare, in which case I consider my physical being to be the system and the other things around to be the surroundings.  But everybody's doing that. If we divide artificially, we make a mental division into some part what we're interested in called the system and the other part called the surroundings, then the entropy of the system and the surroundings for any spontaneous process is going to be positive entropy if I add them up. And that means that we have to disorder the surroundings to order the system. And when you think about it, that's what humans do big time. We wreck everything else so that we can have it our way.  The hotter you are, the quicker you go. Dogs are about a degree warmer than us and they fizzle out pretty quickly. Some other things that have slow metabolism like tortoises can last quite a long time, but they don't do very much. So they sit around, pull their legs in, and so forth. And so there's sort of a constant area under the curve. You can be tall like a spike like that, like a cicada, or you can be long and last a long time like a tortoise. The entropy is really a measure of how much extra chaos we're creating. And the chaos depends on the current state. If I'm at a rock concert and it's loud and people are cheering and clapping so there's a high noise level, then even if I scream, I don't add much to the noise level. But if I'm in a library or in a church and it's dead quiet and I start screaming and tearing on, it's very, very noticeable. It's a big intrusion. It's a big change. And likewise, if we have a cold system and we add heat to it, we disorder it a lot. But if we have a hot system and we add heat to it, we don't disorder it very much at all. And therefore to keep track of the entropy, we have to take a ratio of the heat that we add because heat disorders things. It gets things to move around more randomly. And the temperature that we're already at is a measure of how disordered it already is. And so we take a ratio and to make it a good quantity, we have to add the heat reversibly. So we add the heat as carefully as possible and then we measure how much disorder it created. And then we'll have a measure of the entropy. For an exothermic reaction, then, the reason why exothermic reactions are favorable is because the heat they produce disorders the surroundings. That's why they go. They're creating a ton of disorder in the surrounding. And so at constant temperature and pressure t, if we add some heat to the surroundings, then we know that that's delta H at constant temperature and pressure and the heat had to come from somewhere. So it's minus delta H of the system over t. That's the change in entropy. For the surroundings. Well, to figure out the total sum, we have to not only add the heat to the surroundings, but we have to see if the system itself disordered. In ammonium nitrate, heat came in from the surroundings. So the surroundings became more ordered, but because the ammonium nitrate dissolved and could just move around and had many more possibilities than the solution, the ammonium nitrate itself became very disordered and it became more disordered than the surroundings became ordered and so it goes. That's how we keep track. Oh, it's always the entropy of the universe. And we could use delta S of the surroundings plus delta S of the system, but we don't like talking about the surroundings because usually we don't measure them. We don't know that much about them. And so we replace delta S of the surroundings with minus delta H of the system over t and now we're good to go because this thing here only has state functions and temperature and that measures whether it's going to be likely to go. If I multiply both sides of this through by minus delta T, I get minus t delta S of the universe is equal to delta H minus t delta S for the system. Delta S of the universe has to be greater than 0 for any spontaneous process and that means that minus t delta S has to be less than 0 because t is always positive. This is absolute temperature of course in Kelvin. And therefore if this has to be less than 0 since this is equal to this, this thing has to be less than 0, but this thing is so useful we call it delta G and so we say delta G has to be less than 0 for a process to be spontaneous at constant temperature and pressure. And that's why we want to know delta G up front because we want to know what kind of yield we can expect if we're a good chemist and we do everything perfectly, what are we going to get? And then because we aren't perfect, we always get less than that. So just like the reversible work sets a limit on what we can possibly get. So delta G sets a limit on what kind of yield we can get for any kind of spontaneous process at constant temperature and pressure. Okay, we'll leave delta G there. We'll come back to delta G next a week from Thursday. We'll come back to delta G and we'll continue on it and we'll see how we can use it to predict the ratio of products to reactants and other things like that. For now though, let's press on and do some review problems. And I've tried to make these a little bit topical. They aren't just problems but these are stories like Esau's fables. They have a moral at the end. Sometimes it's good to work through a problem just to see how something would work. So if Governor Schwartz and Egger says we're all going to be driving hydrogen cars in 10 years, you can say no, we won't be. And that's that. Let's have a look. Suppose we want to transition to a hydrogen economy. Scientists are working on this, chemists, chemical engineers and so forth. But let's have a look at what we'd have to be able to do. Let's just figure out the volume of hydrogen gas at 1,000 PSI. That's pretty high pressure. Maybe not unbelievably high but pretty high. 1,000 PSI and 25 Celsius and remember if you're going to have a tank at 1,000 PSI and you park your car in a parking lot out in Indio, you have to make sure that it doesn't explode. Usually that's going to mean a containment vessel which typically is heavy. The more mass you lug around in your car, the worse the efficiency is. Okay? Now I've looked up an approximate value for the enthalpy of combustion of octane. Octane is 2.66 kilograms per gallon and delta H of combustion is minus 5,500 kilojoules per mole. So it's very, very exothermic. That's why we use it. Okay, let's go through and see what we can do. Let's start with octane. We've got 25 gallons in the tank. It's 2.66 kilograms per gallon. The gallons go away. I look up the molar mass of octane and I could do moles per gram but I've decided to do kilomoles per kilogram. Same thing. Now the kilograms are gone and I've got kilomoles. So it turns out in the tank I've got 7,596.3 kilomoles or 7.6 times 10 to the 6 moles of fuel. Now that I know how many moles I have and I know I get 5,500 big fat kilojoules of exothermicity per mole, I can figure out that I get 4.2 times 10 to the 10 kilojoules. That's how much energy manifested as heat that we're putting into the tank. 40 billion kilojoules. Now let's do hydrogen. Well, for hydrogen we need to decide on the phase of the water. What I'm going to assume but it won't make too much difference is I'm going to assume that the water is produced as water vapor, as gas because I don't think in the piston where we're going to get the energy that we can condense the water to water drops and then milk out extra heat and use that for something. I think that heat just goes out the back. We get water vapor coming out and then it condenses. If the tailpipe is cold, initially you may see drips of water as the water condenses or if it's a cold day. So I'm going to assume that the water is water vapor. Most books always assume it's liquid. But anyway, it won't matter too much. We look up the enthalpy of formation of water vapor at 25 Celsius and we find that the delta H of formation is exothermic is minus 241.8 kilojoules per mole. And that's what we're going to get. That's the only product in fact is H2 plus a half O2 equals H2O. So this enthalpy of formation is actually the enthalpy of combustion because it's burning with oxygen. And therefore we need to get 40 billion kilojoules and then per mole of H2O we get minus 241.8 kilojoules. And so we can figure out by the balanced chemical reaction that one mole of H2 gives one mole of H2O. So everything goes away and we have moles of H2 left. 1.7, 3 times 10 to the 7 moles of H2. It seems kind of big, but it doesn't, offhand to me this didn't seem so bad. Seem, yeah, seems like a lot. The problem is that the gas has low energy density even at a thousand PSI. And so the volume that we're going to need to lug around is going to be uncomfortably large. Let's figure out how large it's going to be. Well, we aren't given any van der Waals constants on hydrogen or anything like that. Therefore all we can do is assume hydrogen is an ideal gas. Good enough for the back of the envelope here. And so without any further assumptions we just use the ideal gas equation. And we say the temperature, we'll assume that the temperature is 25 Celsius, and of course whenever we see that we say no straight to Kelvin. Then back to Celsius or Fahrenheit, whatever the public's more comfortable with. V is equal to nRT upon P. We know how many moles. We know R. We know T. And we know a thousand PSI. Ooh, PSI, constant per square inch, what's that? Well, we have to convert to atmospheres because this is atmospheres. If we write in all the units and we don't convert it we have atmospheres over PSI times liters in the answer. And that's a clue that we aren't done. Now we convert 14.7 PSI per atmosphere and we find we need 62 million liters of hydrogen. The question is how big is that? A liter is not so big, but millions of them is getting to be large. And if you work it out this requires a cubic tank that's about as tall as me on each side. That's what you need. In other words, it's almost as big as a whole smart car. Just the fuel tank.  Only if you don't value your life. The smart car doesn't have very good mileage either compared to how tiny it looks. And if you have a collision with another car that Mercedes-Benz makes like just a regular sedan the smart car is annihilated. And if you figure out the acceleration of the crash test dummy you're dead. And the other car just kind of hears this crumpling sound like paper tearing and keeps driving. It doesn't slow down at all. The smart car is called a bus where you get 50 people on and you're getting the same mileage as the smart car and you're completely safe under most circumstances. Okay, the 25 gallon gas tank is only 94.6 liters. And what this means is that even if you can get around all the problems with refueling and stuff who's going to be driving a car with this huge thing on the back. Well, okay, you make the pressure higher you say. Make it 3,000 psi. But there's a limit to that before you need really, really heavy cylinders and they're heavy to carry. And that wrecks your mileage compared to a lighter car. But my conclusion is that the hydrogen economy is going to face a lot of practical problems before it's going to contribute to mobile transportation. So I wouldn't hold my breath and keep in mind that although we figured it out with heat it's really Delta G that we need to figure because if we figure Delta G we can tell how much work we can get. We'll get to that later. But heat is reasonably good. It's closed. All right, let's try another one. Hydrogen may not work. Let's try some other clean burning fuels. Some things that don't produce particulates and soot and stuff that gasoline tends to do and diesel does big time. And let's see if we can make a go out of any of those. So let's compare then the energy density of methane, natural gas, ethane, C2H6, acetylene, C2H2, and hydrogen, H2 for mobile transportation. The Delta H values of formation for these guys are respectively minus 17.9 kilojoules per mole for methane minus 20 kilojoules per mole for ethane and plus 54.2 kilojoules per mole for acetylene. Okay. So we'll start with those and let's just go through them one by one and see how it pans out. We have to do two things. We have to look up the Delta H of formation of the products and on an exam, of course, you would be, yes, of course. On an exam, of course, you would be given a table of the Delta H of formation of these things. Don't memorize numbers that you can look up. We want Delta H of combustion. We have to balance it and then we have to use Hess's law to figure out what it comes to. And the Delta H of formation values for CO2 are minus 393 kilojoules per mole and for water vapor, I'm going to assume they're all making water vapor so at least it's a fair playing field, is minus 241.8 kilojoules per mole. We balance it and the way we balance it is we start with CH4 and we write plus O2 and for complete combustion, which we don't always get in a vehicle, we get 100% CO2 and H2O. Those are the products.  If the fuel has nitrogen, I think I told you you have to be careful. You can get different things dependent on the condition. I have one carbon atom, so that means I have to have one CO2 because CO2 is the only thing with carbon. I've got four hydrogens, so I have to have two H2Os because this is the only thing with hydrogen and then I just figure out how many oxygens I need to make sure oxygen atoms aren't disappearing and there I go. And now I can figure out Delta H of combustion. It's Delta H of formation of the products minus the reactants. Delta H of formation of CO2 is minus 393.5. Plus there's two moles of this, so I have to make two of them, plus two times minus 241.8 minus, this is an element, Delta H of formation is zero. This is minus 17.9 and if I total this up, I find for methane I get minus 859.2 kilojoules per mole. That's a lot better than hydrogen and that's why you see some cars marked CNG on the bumper already because they're running on compressed natural gas and the reason why it's better than hydrogen is that unfortunately most of the oomph comes from forming CO2 but CO2 is the villain currently and if we're burning any kind of carbon fuel and forming CO2 and letting the gas just go up, then we're going to be increasing the concentration of CO2, yes. Well, we have to know that, but we have to know the complete combustion means that the products are CO2 and H2O. That's what we have to know. We have to know complete combustion really means CO2 and H2O and then we have to balance it and then we just use the numbers and the stoichiometric coefficients. Okay, let's go to, let's see, I think the next one's ethane, yes. For ethane, we have two carbons, therefore we get two moles of CO2, we have six hydrogens so we get three moles of H2O and then we just have to balance the oxygen so that we end up with seven on each side and so that's seven halves moles of O2. The computer that controls how the air intake and fuel intake goes into the cylinder has to know what fuel you're burning or it doesn't know what this coefficient is and therefore if you take a car with a computer or with fuel injection and you just put in some other fuel which has different stoichiometry, your car won't work right. It'll, it'll be awful. It'll either bump and chunk around or it'll produce smell terrible or it'll knock, you'll get all kinds of problems. So you have to use the fuel that they're assuming you're going to use and here we do better precisely unfortunately because we're forming two moles of CO2 and CO2 is the 800 pound gorilla because it's got that huge minus 393.5 in its favor. It's very favorable to form it. It's a very stable molecule. We take two times minus 393.5 plus three times the water and then we subtract the delta H of formation of ethane and delta H of formation of O2 is zero and we get minus 1492.4 kilojoules per mole. Therefore ethane is, is much better than methane if you had to choose because for a mole of gas it takes the same volume and you can go a lot farther with ethane and propane will be even better and then you go all the way down and you end up using gasoline again. Now ethane is superior to methane in terms of the heat released. We get almost twice as much, not quite as with CH4. Now let's look at acetylene. For acetylene we've got two carbons again but only two hydrogens so we only get one mole of H2O and again we do the O2 at the end. It doesn't really matter what it is on an exam because this isn't going to contribute to the delta H of combustion. So if you're in a hurry you don't even need to balance the O2 because it's not going to change the answer. For this one then we take again two times 393.5 plus minus 241.8 minus and then this is a positive number so this now gives us extra oomph. We get minus 1083 kilojoules per mole so acetylene is close to ethane not quite as good but acetylene makes a much hotter flame and the reason why acetylene makes a much hotter flame is because it only makes one mole of H2O and H2O has quite a high heat capacity. Therefore if I can burn something and not make as much H2O then the heat that's released can heat up the rest of the products to a much higher temperature and it's for that reason that we use acetylene in a torch to do welding and things like that that require high temperature and you won't see anybody using ethane in a torch. In fact it's called an oxy acetylene torch for precisely that reason. Acetylene is quite an explosion hazard however. Acetylene just if you look at it wrong it says did you say something and blows up and so you have to take that into account too the propensity for something to go wrong as well has to figure in.  So sadly while hydrogen is the best environmentally because it only produces water and doesn't produce any CO2 that's a greenhouse gas because it doesn't produce any carbon dioxide it's wimpy because it's precisely producing the carbon dioxide that gives you the energy. So you're kind of in a jam. If you had to choose of these three you'd choose ethane as the best energy density but it's still much much worse than iso-octane. Okay. Let's do a vapor pressure problem. Let's go back to mixtures. Remember we've got mixtures of two things and they both contribute molecules to the vapor and the more volatile one will have more in the vapor. Oh we've got two substances. They're pure pure compounds A and B and we've measured the total vapor pressure we've just measured the pressure. We haven't measured how much of each one's there but we've taken a certain number of moles one mole total and it's either all A, all B or something in between and based on the data just from the vapor pressure we want to ask the following question do A and B form an ideal solution? We have to remember what an ideal solution is. We remember an ideal gas from the ideal gas equation of state for an ideal solution we have a different measure. I remember we have these mole fractions chi A and chi B and we start with a hundred percent of B and the vapor pressure is a hundred fifty torr and then we make twenty eighty and it's a hundred sixty six hundred sixty point six forty sixty hundred sixty nine point nine sixty forty a hundred seventy three point nine eighty twenty hundred seventy two point six and then a hundred percent hundred seventy and we want to know do A and B form an ideal solution? Well an ideal solution is one that follows Raoult's law at all compositions. That's the definition. If it doesn't follow Raoult's law at all compositions it's not an ideal solution. And Raoult's law says that the vapor pressure is the mole fraction times the vapor pressure of the pure liquid. That's the partial pressure of each. And so if I add them up the total pressure of P which is the vapor pressure of A in the solution plus the vapor pressure of B in the solution it has to be a straight line. Therefore it has to go since the endpoints are hundred fifty and a hundred seventy it has to be a straight line in between. Otherwise it's not following Raoult's law and therefore it's not an ideal solution. And remember there are positive deviations from Raoult's law where the vapor pressure is higher than you would predict and there are negative deviations where the vapor pressure is lower. That means that A and B are kind of sticking to each other. They're sort of sticking and so they aren't bothering to go up into the vapor because they're hanging together. If it's a positive deviation it could be that one of them likes to form hydrogen bonds and pushes the other guy out. Get out of here and so the vapor pressure is higher than you would have predicted. Therefore if we make this plot we're given the data all we have to do is make this plot and see if it's straight. And if we make the plot we see that it's not. It's not straight and therefore this is not an ideal solution end of story because it's quite curved and in fact in this case it's making a positive deviation from Raoult's law because the vapor pressure is higher than we would have predicted from a straight line and that means that A and B quote dislike each other. They'd prefer to be separate so they kind of push each other out of the solution and therefore it's not ideal. Okay, another one. Let's do Henry's law. The solubility of CO2 gas in pure water is known to be 34 millimolar at one atmosphere pressure of CO2. Let's ask what is the solubility of CO2 in water under atmospheric conditions? And let's assume that the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is 380 ppm. I think it's higher than that now but let's assume the partial pressure is 3.8 times 10 to the minus 4 atmosphere. That's the partial pressure of CO2. By the way, if you're running and you're getting tired, there could be two reasons why you're getting tired. Well, there could be three reasons. The first reason is you're out of shape. That's most likely. The second reason is you aren't getting enough oxygen. So you should really concentrate on breathing in like crazy. And the third reason is you aren't exhausting enough CO2. So you should breathe out like crazy. In fact, it's usually the third reason why you get tired.  That's because the pH of your blood is changing.  Let's ease off. That's the signal. And then the other part of your brain says, no way because I want to win. But that's quite a battle of wills because you're fighting against something that's kind of an automatic mechanism and you have to override it in order to keep going. And there are limits to what you can do. Anyway, let's assume that CO2 follows Henry's law. We know that CO2 can't make hydrogen bonds. CO2 is a non-polar molecule. Water is a polar molecule that can form hydrogen bonds. There's no way they're going to form an ideal solution. But we still know that if we don't have much of the solute, that it's still a straight line initially before it goes haywire and curve, but that the straight line has a different slope than the actual vapor pressure of the pure material. And that's Henry's law, which we usually write as the concentration in solution is proportional to the partial pressure of the gas and this proportionality constant here is something different. So it's just some constant K. So the concentration in moles per liter is equal to some constant times the pressure, the partial pressure of the gas in question above the liquid. Let's have a look then. At one atmosphere pressure, the concentration is 0.034 molar and from that we can get the Henry's law constant because we can say it's 0.034 molar at one atmosphere. So Henry's law constant, K is 0.034 molar per atmosphere. Now if we're going to go up to really high pressures, we have to be careful because it won't follow Henry's law because if I keep squeezing and squeezing and squeezing and pushing CO2 in and disrupting the water, just making it go in, then it may not behave the same way. But we're going to be below this because the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere is very tiny. So it will follow Henry's law and we can use this constant, K. And then we just insert the other pressure. We say the concentration in solution in moles per liter is equal to the Henry's constant which we figured out times whatever the pressure is of CO2 in the atmosphere which we said was 3.8 times 10 to the minus 4 and so we end up with 12.9 micro molar as the concentration of CO2. We have to be a little bit careful here for the following reason. We're assuming that CO2 doesn't react with water but CO2 does react with water. Over time, we get carbonic acid H2CO3 that's part of the source of your misery when you're sprinting toward the tape. It's producing too much of that and making your blood acidic. And unfortunately, I think it's going to be the source of some misery going forward because ocean acidification results from dissolved CO2 reacting with carbonate which is in the ocean. And unfortunately, carbonate is what all the marine organisms use like coral and anything with a shell. Carbonate is what they use to make their exoskeleton as we increase the CO2 partial pressure in the atmosphere we increase the concentration of CO2 in the ocean and now we're talking about a separate problem that's nothing to do with the planet warming up. This is a separate problem. And if we consume then all the carbonate ions in the ocean by adding a lot of CO2, millions of tons then there's less around for these little guys to make their skeletons out of. And here's what the measurements show. Here is the CO2 stops at 2,000. I should get some more data. It's not only going up. Not only is it going up faster than linearly, but it seems to be going something like this as everybody in China decides to drive an SUV. If you look at the seawater partial pressure of CO2, that's going up. And if you look at the seawater pH, the pH is going down. And that means that the ocean is becoming more acidic and that means that these guys are dissolving. When they dissolve, they die. When they die, there's no food for anybody on the planet because most of our food comes from the ocean one way or another. If you simulate what happens to these pteropods, these guys are food for everything from whales to everything else. And if you put them in, the pH that we predict we're going to have in 2100 in saline, then their shell dissolves. They won't be able to survive this.  When they die at the bottom of the food chain, everything above them dies too. And then there's nothing there. So seafood may become scarce and we may become scarce too. Because that's nature's way. If you swing things way out of balance, you can do that for a while and then suddenly the pendulum swings back the other way. And the only way it can balance out is if we go extinct, then everything will be hunky-dory again and it'll be paradise. Millions of other kinds of animals will be gone like the dinosaurs. Okay, let's do another one. This is a different one. Back to the good old days. Boy, what would a lazy professor do?  Or should I just give him the Van der Waals gas? Because I told him to do it. Cut, paste. That's one problem. We've got a mole of a Van der Waals gas. The constants are 5.46 liters squared atmosphere per mole squared for A, the attraction part. And 0.05 liters per mole is B, which is the repulsion part. Something to do with the volume of the liquid. And we want to study it at half an atmosphere and 100 degrees C. And we want to know what volume it'll occupy because we're going to do this in a lab and we have to get a container to do it. Well, we have to remember the Van der Waals equation of state. That's not too hard. You've seen that many times. And then we have to ask which variable we're solving for. I think I've told you that if you're solving for A, that could be a variation. The volume's this, what's A? You've got to know B as well. Or what's P? That's all easy because you can isolate them easily. With V the problem is you can isolate V but you get a cubic equation and it takes forever to solve it and it's very prone to error. With N, N is a little bit trickier because N's on both sides. Never guess when the thing is on both sides. At least get everything to one side because if both sides change when you guess, first this is too low and this is too high and then you guess another one. This is too high, this is too low. It gets very confusing. It's better to have the target be fixed so that you can hit it. So V is on the left-hand side only and we start with some guess and in the absence of any better knowledge the guess I choose is always what the ideal gas would predict. I start with N, R, T over P. I know all these guys. I plug them in and then I just guess values of V until I hit the target. Let's try it. I always set up a table to make sure I'm not going around in circles. I'm going to set up a table. I'm going to have V and then I'm just calling it F of V but all it is is the left-hand side. I put in 0.5 atmospheres for P. I put in 5.46. The number of moles is 1 but if it isn't, be careful because it's N squared over V squared. V and then the number of moles is 1 minus 0.05 there and I just plug in and the first, the N, R, T the value I want to get I put in T, 100 Celsius and so forth. I get 15.31 liter atmospheres. My first guess is N, R, T over P. P is half an atmosphere so it's 30.62, just twice this. So I guess 30.62.  It's too big. Now how too big is it? Well, deliberately making a mistake and then we will see how to correct the mistake. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to say that this is about 17 units too big or so and so I'm going to subtract the same from this. I'm going to subtract the difference between these. Saying I want to make this smaller so this comes out smaller. And if I, well, it's actually more like 15 I guess, sorry, 15. So if I subtract 0.15 from this, my next guess is 30.47. And then I see that it didn't come down to 15.31. It only came down about half to 15.39. And then I say why is that? And the answer is because the pressure is half an atmosphere.  And since p is half an atmosphere, I have to go down twice as much as I thought. So I still don't have it. It's still too big. But now I say, okay, it went down. I'm still eight units too big. So I want to come down 16 units 0.16 from this because it's 0.08 too big. And I see that when I lower it, it comes down by half as much as what I change. And so my next quote, gas seems very smart. I come down to 30.31 and at bingo I hit 15.31 right away. And then I'm done. Usually you can get it with three guesses and that's why guessing, although it sounds kind of like it's a joke, it's not. It's actually extremely powerful and very fast. And of course you've checked the answer because you've actually calculated it so you know it's right and you know you haven't hit a bad button because you see the trend. It's very robust. Okay, here's a challenge. You set up a problem. I say set up this problem but leave n unspecified and you tell me what n is. Okay? You know n should be one mole. Leave it unspecified. Guess the n from the ideal gas and then guess until you get it. Okay? Because you can guess for any variable, not just b. Okay, let's do one more. This one is definitely worth paying attention to. Suppose helium gas occurs at 7% by volume in methane, natural gas from fracking. What would be the percentage after one stage of effusion through a tiny orifice into a large evacuated chamber? What would be the percentage of helium after two such processes in succession? So we're trying to purify helium and get it away from the natural gas and as you'll recall, the rate of effusion because effusion is a random process.   It takes you a very long time to find your way out through the hole because it takes you a very long time to go anywhere. And that's why that the ratio goes like the square root of the masses because that's how the most probable speed, the mean speed and the root mean square speed, they all have the inverse square root of the mass and then 3RT, 2RT, whatever on the top and T is the same for both of them if they're in the same container. So that goes away. So the rate of effusion R1 over R2 is m2 over m1 to the one-half power or the square root of m2 over m1. In round figures, methane is 16 grams per mole and helium is 4 and therefore the rate of helium compared to the rate of methane is the molar mass of methane 16 divided by the molar mass of helium 4 square root of 16 over 4 square root of 4 is 2. It's a little different from that but that'll do. That's the rate but that's not the enrichment because the enrichment depends on the rate and then how much of each guy you started with. Oh, if we let the rate of effusion of methane be 1 relatively and then that of helium is 2 it's only really the ratio that matters. Then we can figure out the percent of helium. The percent of helium is how much helium got out. It's how much we started with times 2 the rate at which it gets out divided by the total which is the rate at which methane gets out which is 0.93 it's 93 percent methane times 1 plus 0.07 times 2 because that's how much helium and I work this out and this number comes to be 0.131 or 13.1 percent. That's the enrichment after one stage of effusion and then if I do another stage of effusion I start with a 13.1 and I just do it again and I'll let you work out if you do it a lot of times there's a slick way to work out the formula without going bum bum bum one after another but anyway for now let's just do the next one we now start with 13.1 percent helium it effuses out again through the second hole twice as fast and then we start with 86.9 percent methane because that's what's left it comes out at rate 1 plus 0.131 again times 2 and this works out to be 0.232 so now after two stages we're up to 23.2 percent enrichment and as we get higher and higher enrichment it gets harder and harder unfortunately to make progress so for example if the mixture is already 99 percent helium and then we effuse it through the orifice we enrich it to 99.5 and that means to get to 99.9 we still have to do a bunch more stages and if we want 99.99 it's a bunch more and if we want it really really pure we're going to get really tired of doing this and that's why if you take any material and you specify that its purity is really high it's ever so expensive no matter what it is even pure water is relatively expensive if you say it can't have anything in it that's a special price so you only specify the purity that you actually need not higher okay we'll leave it there and we'll continue on these kinds of problems on Thursday we'll just go through them one by one