Good morning everybody. I'd like to welcome you all to the parallel session of the virtual forum on fossil fuel supply and climate policy. I'm going to just do some brief comments about the conference just to allow some time for people who are joining from the plenary session to join in and then we'll kick things off. For those of you who are just joining this session and didn't join in the other session, you may or may not be aware that this forum is happening in lieu of a conference that was supposed to be happening in Oxford over the next two days on fossil fuel supply and climate policy. This is the third of these conferences. The gap, so to speak, that this conference fails is it provides an opportunity to people to talk about fossil fuel production. So coal oil and gas production in the context of climate change, something that's often missing from climate change conferences more broadly. Very shortly we'll be plugging in a conference website link for those of you who might want to join us for the next one of these conferences. We're hoping fingers cross that if travel conditions resolve and if health conditions resolve that we will be able to host the conference again next September in Oxford and we'll also be hosting a remote event for those of you who want to join us and don't want to get on a plane to go to Oxford to attend. And with that I might hand it over now to Catherine Harrison who will be our moderator for this event. Catherine is based at the University of British Columbia where she's a professor of political science and I'll let her introduce the panel and the speakers today. Thank you, Georgia. Good morning, afternoon, evening, everyone. I'm sorry that we're not together in person but delighted to be chairing this this panel. The topic of the panel is prospects for international cooperation to manage a transition away from fossil fuel production. The challenge is that the halting progress that we've made to date to coordinate internationally coordinate efforts to constrain fossil fuel consumption will only be undermined if countries just keep producing fossil fuels and flooding global markets in desperation thus depressing prices and encouraging fossil fuel consumption. So among the questions that I'm hoping panelists in this session will address are how can we transition away from fossil fuel production at a global scale? What sort of governance arrangements and transition supports will be needed to facilitate international cooperation on a managed decline in fossil fuel supplies? And what are the most promising options for international cooperation? Is it through the UNFCCC perhaps a new fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty or clubs of major fossil fuel producers? The panelists will draw on their experience in past climate and energy negotiations to highlight some of the challenges to reaching international agreement but also highlighting examples that already exist of international cooperation on fossil fuel supply. So I will introduce all of the panelists and then we'll get going with a conversation among them. Dr. Gehr Ashem is a professor of economics at the University of Oslo in Norway. Dr. Ashem is a prominent scholar of environmental economics and has been recognized as fellow of the European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists and an elected member of the Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters. Dr. Harro Van Asselt is a professor of climate law and policy at the University of Eastern Finland Law School, an affiliated researcher of the Stockholm Environment Institute and a visiting research fellow with Utrecht University's Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development. With more than 15 years of research experience, he's an expert on interactions between international climate change governance and other fields of international governance. Sepora Berman is the international program director at Stan.Earth and an adjunct professor in York University's Faculty of Environmental Studies. She is previously the co-director of Greenpeace International's Global Climate and Energy Program and was the co-founder of Forest Ethics. Among her many accolades for her work as an environmental campaigner, she is currently the recipient of the Climate Breakthrough Award for her work developing a Global Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty. And finally, Dr. Nevroz Dubash is a professor at the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. Dr. Dubash has been active in the climate policy arena for more than 25 years. He helped establish the Global Climate Action Network in 1990 and is currently a coordinating lead author for the IPCC's sixth assessment report. He advises the UNEP emissions gap report steering committee and has been a member of the scientific advisory group of the UN Climate Action Summit. So we've got a fantastic panel of folks to address these questions. To get things started, Dr. Asim, recently you published an article in Science Magazine making the case for a supply-side climate treaty. Why do we need international cooperation on fossil fuel production? Thank you very much. Yes, together with eight Norwegian co-authors, we published last year a policy format on science, where we argue that the Paris Agreement can be strengthened if fossil fuel producing countries agree on a plan or a treaty for leaving oil, gas and coal deposits permanently in the ground. And what I will do in my introductory remarks, I will present the four key economic mechanisms that we present in support of such supply-side policies. First of all, they will enhance the impact of the Paris Agreement in the presence of free riders. The problem is that demand-side policies like the Paris Agreement, if it works, are undermined by the so-called carbon leakage. Demand-side policies cause lower fossil fuel prices, which in turn lead to increased use of fossil fuels in free riding countries. Producer countries can counter this by reducing their supply of fossil fuels, thereby contributing to higher global fossil fuel prices. It can be shown that the cost-efficient mix of supply-side and demand-side policies for the group of producer countries depends on how supply and demand for fossil fuels among free riders respond to changes in fossil fuel prices. But it's not the case that we want to depend only on demand-side policies. The second argument is that such supply-side policies will enhance investments in green technology. The producer treaty will raise the expected future prices of fossil fuels, also in countries without their own climate policies. This makes it more profitable for private investors to invest in climate-friendly technologies. The third key argument is that such supply-side policies will ensure against a failed Paris Agreement. If the Paris Agreement succeeds, then the producer treaty is superfluous and inexpensive, and it might even be that it might avoid waste by preventing development of deposits and investments in infrastructure that will end up being unprofitable, but which are planned by investors with weak belief in effective future climate policies. As last year's production gap report demonstrates, this is a real possibility as planned future fossil fuel developments far exceed a level consistent with climate goals. That's if the Paris Agreement succeeds. However, if the Paris Agreement fails, then the producer treaty will temper these serious effects of continued ineffective demand-side climate policies and thus be essential in this case. The fourth and final argument is that such supply-side policies will bring producers on the team, and that's important because fossil fuel producers have often blocked climate action. If supply-side policies will benefit producers as a group, so why is that? Because even though producers would lose on deposits that will remain untouched, something that will happen also with a successful Paris Agreement, they will gain on fossil fuels that are nonetheless produced, since fossil fuel prices will be higher. That's the argument for why it will be a good thing for fossil fuel producers and bring them on the team and not having them blocking climate action. In our science article, we also mentioned possible practical steps towards supply-side climate treaty, but for now I will leave this for others and perhaps return to that later in the discussion. Thank you very much. Thank you, and I would add if participants check out the chat function, there is a link to the science article, the case for a supply-side climate treaty, there and also a link to the International Conference on Fossil Fuel Supply and Climate Policy next year's conference, we hope. Okay, turning to Harro Van Asselt, what options do we have for addressing fossil fuel production at the international level and what key issues should be considered when developing some form of international governance on fossil fuel supply and climate change? Over to you. Thank you, Catherine, and good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, everyone. So we already heard from Professor Eislem who has laid out the case for international cooperation on fossil fuel production, and I would say his argument resonates in various academic and civil society proposals that we have seen so far suggest the proposal that I'm sure that my fellow panelists will be talking about for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. Beyond such proposals, we should also know that international cooperation is already taking place in related areas. So we know, for example, that a small group of countries, including New Zealand, Costa Rica, and Norway, is already working together to develop rules to face out fossil fuel subsidies through an agreement on climate change, trade, and sustainability. We also know that another set of countries is already undertaking activities jointly in pursuit of a face-out of coal-fired power plants through the powering past coal alliance. But extending these models to fossil fuel production is one of the questions that we're addressing here. But interestingly, here we see a recent proposal by U.S. Vice Presidential Candidate Kamala Harris, who has suggested that she was going to launch the first ever global negotiation of the cooperative managed decline of fossil fuel production. So knowing that, how would such international cooperation look like? And how could it move forward? So here I'll try and sketch some of the key questions and issues that should be considered when developing some form of international coalition on fossil fuel production and climate change. So the first key question here I would say is the question of who can and who should participate. Universe participation might be preferred with all countries being on board, might be the desired end goal, but at the same time it might make sense to start with a club approach with a group of frontrunners taking the lead. And if we take a club approach, such a club may then evolve into a larger coalition of countries and something that we're now seeing already with powering past coal, with more and more important coal countries coming on board. The credibility of club can certainly be strengthened by having major fossil fuels producers participate, but we should also keep in mind that participation of other countries with little or no fossil fuel extraction, such as small island state and least developed countries can also add moral weight to any initiative. Then a related question is whether we should also include in the participation non-state and subnational actors. And here we can think of subnational authorities participating as something beneficial for countries where subnational governments are taking action, but federal governments are unwilling to do so. And ultimately any of these types of initiatives could be modeled after a variety of cooperative initiatives that we already see in the climate sphere and in recent years, particularly especially after the Paris Agreement. We have initiatives such as the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the Carbon Price and Leadership Coalition, Powering Past Coal, which I already mentioned, where we have several research organizations and NGOs, subnational authorities and businesses participating alongside governments. So the first question then is about participation, but then the next question is about which forum to use. And here we could think about trying to link any initiatives on fossil fuel production to existing forums such as the UNFCCC, where we have already seen discussions on the just transition away from fossil fuels, assuming increasing importance in recent years. But we can also think about forums such as the G20, where we know that countries have pledged to face up to inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. But then it might also make sense to focus on creating a new forum needing specifically with fossil fuel production and climate change. Of course, creating a new forum may entail some cost in terms of setting up a new administrative structure, but it would also avoid the political baggage that we know exists with some of the existing forums. However, I guess the most important point is even if a new forum is created, cooperation on fossil fuel production does not need to be limited to just one forum. And arguably, arguably even say that it should be pursued across a multiplicity of forums. So if countries want to pursue commitments on fossil fuel production, so they can pursue general cooperation, but they can also try and come to concrete commitments to do something, then the next question is what forms such an agreement should have and what these commitments should be. And in terms of the forum, some have suggested to have it as a presumably legally binding treaty, but this is not the only possible form. International agreements, as any lawyer on the call might know, can take a wide variety of forms from non-binding political declarations, compacts, memoranda for understanding to indeed a legally binding treaty. While a legally binding treaty might signal a strong commitment on behalf of the participating countries, it would, as we probably all know, be very, very challenging to negotiate and would likely also preclude participation by non-state actors. Then the final question, which is something that I would suggest that also some of the other PEP analysts may reflect on, is what should the contents of any such agreement be? So what kind of commitment should we be thinking of? And let me just highlight a few things to think about. I think the first thing any agreement needs to think about is which fossil fuels it should cover. Should it be coal, oil and gas or just maybe coal or just like the Power and Press Coal Coalition or all of them, how do we need to deal with areas such as coal mining and coal-fired power plants? Should we include both or just focus on mining, which would be the actual production of fossil fuels? And how should we deal with technologies like CCS? All of these questions would need to be answered in that process. Then as we come to the substantive commitments, we can think of a variety of types of commitments. We can think of a commitment to not build anything new, to not build no new fossil fuel infrastructure. We can also think about phasing out existing infrastructure, which would obviously already go a step further. Or we could think of a more general obligation to have a just transition away from fossil fuels. And in thinking about these types of commitments, we also need to think very carefully, and I'm sure that Navarose de Basse will reflect on this as well, we need to think very carefully about the position of developing countries, which so far are very much dependent on fossil fuel production. This is something already highlighted by Dr. Benton in the opening plenary as well. So what do we do with the countries who might have recently discovered fossil fuels in their territories? And then finally, I think it's important to think about the notion and the importance of transparency in any approach, in any type of international cooperation. So we need to think about transparency of fossil fuel production plans, about the implications for climate change, and how that could figure into international cooperation. So I guess I've raised a lot of questions, and I think one hour is only so much time that we can have to answer some of these questions. But in my view, these are some of the main issues that we need to think about when we're thinking about concretely international cooperating on fossil fuel production and climate policy. Thank you, Harro. I just want to note for those who are attending that there are some more links that are appearing in the chat to recent articles. But we are asking that you post any questions to a separate Q&A link, which you can find with the dot dot dot at the bottom of your screen. Turning to Sephora Berman, we've been hearing the term fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty a few times already in the last 15 minutes. That's something that you're working on. So can you tell us more about what such a treaty would include and who you would anticipate participating? Sure. Thank you, Catherine. And thank you to SEI for this really important forum. So we've heard already this morning about the case for supply side policy, but the need for multilateral cooperation. And given the timeframe, which I will, Catherine, start my stopwatch, I'm going to leap over that and go through what we're working on right now. Next slide, please. Great. So we've already heard about the supply side challenges. There is quite a lot of momentum in this field. This concept emerged from many academics almost simultaneously. We heard this morning from Dr. Herr Assam. We are working very closely with colleagues, Peter Newell and Andrew Sims, who've articulated the need for a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty. And of course, we saw in the past, historically Pacific Island nations also called for a global coal moratorium, civil society organized around the Lofoten declaration. And we're now seeing leaders like AOSA's Chair, Ambassador Moses of Nauru, and Camilla Harris calling for international cooperation. This year, Mary Robinson advocated the treaty before the UN Security Council. Next slide, please. So the case is clear, but there are clearly, as we just discussed, systemic challenges. We've seen vested interests and capacity issues that make a phase out very challenging. So we aim to overcome these challenges through a unified call for global cooperation that will, among other things, set global obligations and norms, strengthen transparency and accountability on fossil fuel production and planned fossil fuel production, increase risks, costs and uncertainty for investors, and embed principles of equity and the concept of just transition. This is a really critical point we saw already in the chat, people saying, well, wait a minute, what about the markets? The markets are doing this, we're seeing capital flight, et cetera. That's true. We cannot let nation states off the hook at this moment in history. The fact is we are going to need global cooperation. There are many countries that can't negotiate a just transition on their own because, in fact, they are currently so dependent economically on production. Or, in fact, they're pursuing new production, such as Ecuador, the new drilling in the Amazon, simply to feed their debt. We need a globally negotiated just transition. We need managed decline globally to reflect principles of equity. Of course, you're all familiar with the tremendous work of Greg Mutant and Shivan Kartha on this point. We believe a treaty will create the forum for those discussions. Next slide, please. The fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty is framed in part using lessons from many treaties. The pillars are designed after the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, non-proliferation, global disarmament, peaceful transition. We have work in each of those areas going on around the world. The provisions of a treaty are for countries to negotiate, but the framework of non-proliferation kind of provides guiding principles for a global regime. Next slide, please. So what we've been doing is building a broad international coalition and public civil society campaign, which will launch this year as partners around the world start to develop it, consisting of partner organizations from each region in the world, structured around diplomatic engagement, campaign, and research goals. Next slide, please. So in terms of diplomatic engagement, we aim to engage governments on the need for international cooperation and a pathway to achieve it in practice. The strategy has a number of parts to start socializing the concept of a managed fossil fuel phase-out and a just transition at the UN and other multilateral fora. The first piece, which we released last week, is the idea of a global registry of fossil fuels to promote government accountability and transparency on fossil fuel production. Next is a global commission modeled right now a bit on the World Commission on Dams, so a global commission on fossil fuels to raise the profile of the issue and the treaty through high-level engagement. And the final hurdle, of course, is to launch a formal process to deliver a negotiated legal instrument on the phase-out of fossil fuels. We don't expect to see a universal treaty, at least in the median term. Instead, we expect countries that are particularly vulnerable to climate change, non-producer countries, and over time, middle-income and middle-producer countries, to join in the treaty effort to share in their challenge and diversify away from fossil fuels. Together, a coalition of such countries could have real power, both to support each other in their own phase-out and transition plans, but also creating reputational and financial pressure. Next slide, please. I won't go into detail on the global registry, given the time frame here, but I would suggest it would be interesting to this audience take a look at the white paper that we've released, as well as the RFP. Our goal is to create a prototype, to create knowledge of what's happening around the world. It's absurd that civil society has had to add this up, and we need to hold countries to account. Next slide, please. We have a comprehensive research program that's looking at a political economy analysis and stakeholder mapping of countries and regions to try to lump and split the countries and understand the barriers to this. We also have geopolitics and global political economy analysis, equity principles, transparency frameworks, and looking at other UN processes and multilateral frameworks, and then we have thematic and cross-cutting research under the other pillars, looking at narrative and communications, supply chain mapping, just transition, and a systems analysis. Next slide, please. And then finally, we're working with partners around the world to develop a global campaign with the goal of changing the narrative around fossil fuels, amplifying existing phase-out efforts and highlighting a vision of an equitable and just global transition. We're getting a lot of interest from youth groups around the world, some of whom have already launched their treaty campaigns in New Zealand. Fridays for the Future and youth groups have already launched their public campaigns. So in some, we're taking a global systems approach to the fossil fuel industry with the idea of a treaty as a beacon to coalesce global civil society coalitions working in every region and an increased pressure on industry and governments. I'll stop there. I know I'm six minutes. Sorry about that. Quite all right. And I would just draw everyone's attention to links in the chat room to the fossil fuel nonproliferation treaty organization's website and a page on that site on the global registry of fossil fuels. So, Navrose Dubash, do you think a major fossil fuel producing nation like India, which is expecting tremendous growth in energy demand, would be willing to participate in such an international agreement? And what lessons, as a keen observer of the UN FCCC process, do you think we might learn from that experience, from the demand side for international cooperation on supply? Okay. Thank you very much, Gaffy. And thank you to SEI for inviting me to join this panel and the other organizers. So I was asked, as Gaffy has framed the question in part to reflect on all these ideas from the perspective of a large developing country, a fossil fuel user. But I really feel I should start with an exemption clause. Please don't consider me in any way, shape or form, channeling the government of India. Not only would I not be capable of doing so, but it's something that's well beyond my ability. So I'm going to actually speak from the perspective of a watcher of the Indian debates, but also trying to bring some of the ideas coming from Indian civil society and researchers. So I found this, like many climate debates, I thought Professor Ashim's arguments were incredibly clear and the economic case for something like a supply side international agreement are very compelling. He also put forward an interesting point of view that for fossil fuel exporters, it might bring some of them on side because they may not suffer the price drops that they otherwise would have. So those that they are able to sell, they would be able to get a higher price for. The question really is, I think, to my mind about the politics. And I was very struck by it, Sephora's really sort of thoughtful laying out of some of the issues and how they proposed to meet them as well as Harrow's very sort of clear outline of an agenda. There are two things that really come up when you think about the politics around this proposal, right? So the first issue is, if you do have some sort of treaty that limits how much you dig up and how much you burn, how do you allocate who digs up and burns and based on what principles? It's the old sort of climate echo to question of allocation. It's something that I've written about with Shivankartha from ACI and others coming out of, in fact, the first of these conferences. And the second big issue is the one that I think both Harrow and Sephora refer to, which is, what does it mean for development prospects in particular of countries that who expect their fossil fuel use to be growing? So let me just pick each of those up briefly. So on the allocation question, in a sense, we've been around this particular sort of lot a few times. The paper by Peter Newell and his colleagues that is part of the nonproliferation sort of initiative talk about I think the right kinds of principles, right? That if we have an allocation system to allocate permits to extract and burn fossil fuels, it has to be rooted in UNFCC principles, such as common but differentiated responsibility and respective capabilities. It has to take into account historical admissions. As Shivankartha and I and our colleagues put it in our paper, maybe we should be thinking about an extractor phase principle commensurate with the polluter phase principle. All of this takes you down a direction that would actually go a long way towards preserving the interests of developing countries and would be viewed sympathetically in India. As long as we get to burn some of our fuel as part of an adjustment, not in perpetuity, but as part of an adjustment, then sure it makes sense for a country like India to be on board. And if CBD are the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities at its core, then it's very much consistent with how India at least and many other countries think about this. The problem, of course, is the politics of this. We were not able to get an allocation story going on the demand side, despite two decades of efforts trying to do so. And it's very unlikely that we will get a political agreement around something like common but differentiated responsibility as the basis for allocation on the supply side, where the interests are actually much more concentrated and therefore better able to mobilize than on the demand side. So I see this as just an enormous problem really to take this forward in the way of a, in the form of a sort of a form of treaty, which is where allocations are negotiated. I think the politics are just too entrenched, excuse me. So what about the energy for development story? Now, a few years ago, I actually remember people were projecting India's, you know, that India would basically pull a China when it came to something like core use, right, that we were about to expand enormously. The standard storyline that has informed global politics has been that development, whether you understand that more in human development terms or in terms of GDP and economic development is very closely tied to energy and the cheapest forms of energy out there are fossil fuels. Now, of course, we're in a very, you know, much more interesting world where fossil fuels are no longer for many uses the cheapest or the cheapest sources and may not bring other benefits when it comes to the issues like air pollution and so on and so forth. Renewables is now being added at a faster pace in most countries, including India. So does that mean that this argument about energy for development has dissipated? Well, not exactly, right, because the transition continues to be very fraught. Let me give you a couple of examples from India. So one of the challenges India faces in moving, say, its electricity sector to renewables, a majority of renewables, is that in that transition process, what we are seeing is that industry currently cross subsidizes household consumers and farmers. So they pay high prices. So they are likely to migrate off the grid to renewable energy, leaving the household consumers, poor people, farmers, essentially with the stranded assets of coal, right? So there's kind of a tussle going on right now of how do you manage this transition without actually placing all the costs on the poorest, right? So in that process, so those kinds of local political economies that the solution to which may or may not be a slower phase out of coal, there are probably ways to do it without that, but at least it's part of the people who are unwilling to make that leap until they're sure this transition can happen in ways that are not socially disruptive, right? So it's a question of hedging your bets. And then the other disruption is the standard one that we've seen in many countries, which goes under this sort of broad label of the just transition story, which is what you do with communities, workers that are dependent on fossil fuels, and that's a story that's familiar to all of us. It's a tremendously important story. Of course, in a country like India, those communities tend to be even closer to the floor of subsistence levels, and so are better, are less able to bear those sorts of shocks. So all of these things combine to lead a country like India, I would suspect, to a considerable amount of conservatism about taking on the risk of these transitions. I found some of Sepora's ideas about a world commission on dams kind of structure, which incidentally I spent a couple of years studying the WCD. It's a really interesting process. Something that gets the conversation going, a registry that introduces transparency, these kinds of initial steps might work, but I suspect many of the arguments I've put forward would also hold true, including for fossil fuel exporters like Light South Africa, and I see some comments from our friend and colleague Harold Winkler on the chat. Let me just say this. I think ultimately, this conversation has to move very rapidly from what is feasible in terms of international politics to what is feasible in terms of domestic politics in key countries. What is the domestic narrative? If South Africa can build a domestic narrative that allows black economic empowerment, that creates jobs that is consistent with the fossil fuel phase out, you have much greater hope of doing this. If India can create a domestic narrative similarly, that talks about energy security, air pollution, as well as climate mitigation without disruptive change for farmers who are big both bank and for industry who of course bankrolls elections, then we have more of a prospect of change. So I think we have to look at the domestic politics in key countries, and that is I think a part that I'm glad to see those of our colleagues looking at this are thinking about actively, but that's really where I would leave the conversation by shining the light really on where does domestic politics in key countries take us as part of this conversation. Thank you, Nevros. We've got tons of fantastic questions coming in. Again, I'll just direct you to the Q&A option rather than the chat function for that purpose. In order to cover more questions, I'll direct some of your questions to one of the panelists in each case, and we'll start with you, Gair. Why would fossil fuel producing countries agree to things in a new treaty that they haven't agreed to under the existing Paris Agreement and UNFCCC? That is because with supplies with supplies of policies, fossil fuel prices will be higher, but so like there was also a question of why would countries like Saudi Arabia and Qatar go along with supply side policies? That's actually quite easy to answer because it would be in their advantage, especially if one allocates their reductions in fossil fuel production or in a cost-efficient way because it's clear that it's not Saudi Arabia which should not produce the oil. It is especially coal that should be not produced and developed further. The oil of Saudi Arabia is valuable. The coal that might be developed is not valuable, but in order to avoid that countries like South Africa and India expand their coal production, then perhaps one would hope that these oil-producing countries could compensate countries like South Africa and India for not producing their coal. How this can be done politically is difficult. Countries like Norway, Canada and Australia should be able to limit their production of coal or fossil fuel production without any compensation because countries like I mentioned India and South Africa should be there is an argument that they should be compensated for not using them. Thank you. Harro, another question that's getting lots of lots of votes in the Q&A is irrespective of what the optimal architecture for such a treaty might look like. There's a wider question about whether the UN FCCC will ever be ready and able to explicitly integrate constraining fossil fuel production into its political and legal regime. So do you feel there's space in the UN FCCC for such a discussion? Right. Thanks, Kathy. And thanks also for asking that question. It's a very, very pertinent one. And I think for those of us who have been following UN FCCC negotiations for a long time, we get a bit skeptical and pessimistic about its ability to deal with very challenging and pressing issues like this. Is there space to develop any commitment for countries to face out fossil fuel production? I would probably say no. But that is also a very ambitious goal and that would be ambitious goal either within the UN FCCC or outside of it. Is there space for countries to raise this on the agenda? And I think that's where the answer is certainly yes. Because I think the UN FCCC, as again inside of all know, it's a party-driven process. And that means that parties can bring this issue to the table at relevant forms within the UN FCCC. But I think after Paris, it's even become more party-driven in the sense that parties can determine what they want to do themselves in terms of their mitigation goals. So in a paper that I think was already included in the link, my SEI colleagues and I, we've looked at some of the options where parts can actually push these issues forward. And that is including fossil fuel supply, like limitation measures in their NDCs. It's raising these issues in the long-term 2050 strategy. It's by trying to bring this to the attention of the global stocktake, for example, by linking the production gap results to the global stocktake in 2023. It's linking climate finance discussions under Article 21c, so that's the long-term goal to make sure that climate finance is ultimately climate friendly, to also raise issues of fossil fuel finance in that discussion. I will certainly not say that this is going to be easy. But I would say that there is plenty of opportunity in different forms under UNFCCC for parties that wish to raise this to do so. Thank you. Sephora, do you see a risk that efforts to create a new agreement on the supply side could take off the pressure, shift the focus away from negotiations on emissions mitigation targets? It's a good question, but I think it's quite the opposite. Social change isn't linear. We know that. When you see civil society pressure or raising of particular issues, decision makers respond. They don't necessarily respond to that particular issue. Let me give you a concrete example. Campaigns across Canada and across North America against pipelines for many years and against tar sands expansion led in part to the Pan-Canadian Climate Framework, which is a framework that didn't address tar sands expansion and didn't address pipelines. But what it did address is demand side measures because that was the policy framework that the government had for addressing climate change. When our Prime Minister in Canada announced that agreement explicitly said this is in part because of the controversy and unrest across the country about the future of energy and pipelines. So they were hearing the controversy. They were knowing they had to do something to increase climate ambition. That led to a nationwide carbon tax, etc. So we believe that an increased debate of something this bold, this audacious, this changing the bar on climate leadership that coalesces what civil society and frontline communities have been saying for years. There already is a keep it in the ground movement around the world, but we're fighting project by project. And so if you unite that and start to have millions of citizens, cities endorsing the concept of the treaty, like you had with nuclear non-pluripharation, where you're starting to have an increased and coalesced drumbeat and demand for governments to stop expansion around the idea of a treaty, does that increase ambition and force governments to have to show their acting on climate change? Because they don't want the conversation around a treaty that constrains expansion. We think it will. Thank you, Sephora. Nevereaux, you've already raised the question of the domestic politics and there's a question posed that the key politics that matters is not international, it's national. Domestic political elites in many countries rely on large rents from fossil fuel production. How will these be replaced? And if they can't, isn't there a concern that those elites will oppose serious action even if they support the theory and international for it? I'm going to throw in my own question here and that's whether the domestic politics could be different in fossil fuel exporting nations rather than those that are primarily producing for their own consumption. Right. Thanks. Thank you, Cathy. No, I think it's a really good question. I'll come back to your add-on to the question. I think what, you know, one thing Sephora said in her remarks stuck with me, which is that there is kind of a point of view that says, look, this is happening anyway. We're seeing the technology transition. We're seeing industries making bets that are basically not bets in favor of fossil fuels. And certainly in India, you see some of these dynamics. I was in on a public event with the former head of coal in their limited, the largest coal mining company in the world. And he basically said there will be no new power plants built in India. Nobody will bet on that, which doesn't mean that we are going to stop burning coal, of course, because we have a big stock of power plants. And so people are beginning to see those changes. And I think that so many of the interests that would otherwise have fought tooth and nail for this are beginning to kind of swing two point of view that says, this is not something that our long-term interests are tied to. These technologies and these fuels are not where our long-term interests are. But as I argued, they nonetheless at the government level and at the level of, you know, how they would position themselves would nonetheless argue for the option, right? So now coming back, I think that the core idea here is less the treaty and more the conversation of a treaty about fossil fuel non-proliferation. It's about injecting that as a serious option in a way that the keep it in the ground campaign and the numbers that came out of that sort of seminal paper and the effects on the underlying stock prices of fossil fuel companies change the conversation. So to the extent that we think about this as a conversation changing dynamic that can then feed into domestic politics from the outside, then I think it's productive. I think sort of having so moving towards the treaty in itself is productive. Trying to leap to a treaty and saying, well, in three years, we need to have this thing in place.  So I think if we're talking about this as a process and an opening of a conversation politically, I think that's productive. If we, with due respect to Harrow, if we bring the lawyers into the game too early and make this about a negotiation that we might be moving forward. Thank you, Nervous. Over to you, Harrow. There's a question about bottom-up approaches, the role of bottom-up fossil-free zones including coal-free subnational jurisdictions, coal-free states, fracking free municipalities, building towards fossil-free countries. So what do you see as the role of these bottom-up processes as stepping stones towards a fossil-free non-proliferation treaty? Well, I see them as quite an important role. And I think, Sephora also mentioned the idea of clubs. I mentioned it myself. And I think if we think more freely about who can participate in the club, things can get much more exciting, because I think several people have been talking about the importance of domestic politics in actually creating this shift. If we just focus on intergovernmental cooperation, we probably know where, and intergovernmental negotiations, we probably know where it will end. But if we start bringing in additional players from subnational authorities, from progressive companies, from NGOs that have not just environmental NGOs, but also maybe in public health and other areas that might be interested in moving away from fossil fuels, things I think can get a lot more promising and new coalitions could be built that we might not have seen before. I think the idea of fossil-free zones is particularly interesting one, because it's quite broad. I think several people have been suggesting to focus specifically on coal. That's maybe a very, very justified thing to do. But the idea of fossil-free zones is very broad, which also means that you can get a lot of different actors on board, and that I think could move things forward. The one risk you might get with that is that it's so broad that no one really feels that they need to commit on certain things that matter in terms of production. And I think this is one of the things that has been shown with Powering Past Coal, where you could say, well, Powering Past Coal is great, but actually doesn't focus on coal mining, focus on coal-fired power plants. So what about those countries, and I think this is also raised in the chat already, those countries that are major coal producers, such as Australia, and where are they in this type of coalition? So I think it can be potentially promising, and I think trying to build these clubs with broad participation and also trying to think creatively about who could participate is, at this moment, I would say a key step. Thanks, Harro. Sephora, we've seen a proliferation of climate litigation around the world with many of those cases focusing on new fossil fuel production projects. And you've already touched on campaigns against pipelines, which I think are closely related. Do you think, what role do you think that litigation can play in this transition towards limiting fossil fuel supply and towards a non-proliferation treaty? I think litigation is absolutely critical, because even the process and the threat of potential outcomes in litigation is already having an impact in markets and on government policy. And in some cases, of course, as we've seen with our children's trust and other cases, it's changing the debate on what is climate leadership and forcing a much more public debate about within countries and internationally on what is acceptable targets, et cetera. And we have a capacity and a timeframe problem, because these cases are expensive, they're time consuming, and the strategy of industry in many of these cases has been to make sure that they go on as long as they can to wait it out, which, of course, increases costs, et cetera. Many of the cases are being brought forward by coalitions of civil society groups, nonprofits, et cetera, and that can shrink the budgets of those nonprofits and philanthropic foundations from other initiatives. So it's very dangerous to rely simply on the legal cases, but I think they are absolutely essential. But what I think we can't forget here, and we often do in these conversations, because the debates and the processes and the which proposal is important and are so interesting and critical, is the time frame that we have.  This is a moment in history when we need big. We need new, because what we've been doing hasn't been working. We need audacious. And we have to remember the time frame we're dealing with the incredible work of Stockholm Environment Institute and others has shown us through the production gap report that we're on track to produce 120% more fossil fuels than the world can safely burn. And we heard this morning from my ISD and others that the majority of the stimulus money is in fact going to fossil fuels and fossil fuel development. Our intellectual and financial capital continues to be shoveled into producing a product that threatens the world's security that we can't even burn. And we can't forget that. And I just, you know, I live in the Pacific Northwest, we can't go outside today because of the smoke. The fires are raging all across the Western North America. And so we have to remember that we're racing against the clock. And so I think we need legal challenges. We also need bold new proposals. We need it all because we're running out of time. Thank you, Sephora. Yes, I'm also looking at the just apocalyptic looking skies outside the window here. I think we just have time for one more question. I'm going to pose it to Gar. There hasn't been much talk about the role of extractive companies. We've been talking about governments, VP's new strategy aims at net zero by 2040. Do you see a positive role for oil, gas and coal mining countries, both the multinationals and state owned enterprises? And if so, what might that role look like? I believe that the role of companies are related to the role of governments in this when it comes to this development. If governments try to do not allow for more development, also the companies will have to turn elsewhere for their development. So, but I don't really have any strong views on this. I would just want to say as my concluding remarks that we've tried demand side policies and that's been a failure. We have to try everything in order to do something with climate change. And there are strong arguments for supply side policies. We should not go for a grand treaty. We should rather go for some kind of various process on the supply side. And maybe that start with rich, well-organized fossil fuel producing countries with climate goals that they try to limit their own especially exploration for fossil fuels. And then maybe also challenge other fuel producing countries to state nationally determined contributions for development and production of fossil fuels. And that is important for the countries to start a process like that. And back to the companies then companies will also have stronger incentives to turn around and use their invest in other things than try to develop more fossil fuels. Thank you. We're drawing to the end of our time and I want to give a little bit of time at the end to our organizers to highlight next steps. So let me just conclude by thanking all of the panelists and thanking the participants who posed such great questions as Sepua Berman indicated. We need time is very short and we need new and audacious ideas. And I think these panelists are contributing that they're concretely moving forward with both research and and organizing to to advance the conversation. We know that the exclusive focus on the demand side hasn't served us well. And the one thought that I would leave this conversation with is the importance of the justice lens that has come through in many of the remarks that if we are bringing fossil fuel producing countries on board because this will have greater economic benefit to them, there's the risk that we will be enhancing the already greater wealth of those countries. So building in the conversation about the kinds of subsidies, cross subsidies that Gar was talking about from oil producing states to the coal producing states in the first instance. So again, thank you to all the panelists. And with that, I'm going to hand things back to Georgia on next steps for the fossil fuel supply conferences. Thanks, Kathy. And thanks to all the panelists. That was a really terrific discussion. I'm really pleased that we were able to have this. There were a lot of great questions raised today that we didn't have the time or space to cover questions about, you know, how we deal with national politics, local politics, questions about the interaction between supply side policies and demand side policies. What I'll say is please take that energy, take these questions and start thinking about presentations and panels that you might want to organize at the conference that we're going to be holding next year in Oxford and online. We'll open the call for papers in February. If you want to get a notification when that happens, please sign up at the link on the bottom of the screen here, which I hope will also appear in the chat box while I'm speaking. We'd love to have you all there and we'd love to continue these discussions and expand these discussions into a whole range of other interesting areas. So thank you, everybody, for participating today. And I really appreciate everybody.


Let's do a fountain pen unboxing. We're going to take a good look at a pen that takes many months to expertly handcraft. This is the Namiki Yukari Bush Clover fountain pen. It's a 2023 limited edition release. It's also referred to as Hagi, which translates to Autumn Grass or Bush Clover. Okay, the packaging is really nice, really classy. It's got a white, really nicely textured box on the exterior and then inside you have your materials about how to care for your pen, the company, and then this is the specific material about this limited edition.  And it's branded Namiki. You have a full-size bottle of ink that comes with your beautiful Bush Clover fountain pen. Okay, let's go through this pen. The Bush Clover is cherished as one of the seven flowers at the bottom. It's referenced in more than a hundred poems in the oldest surviving book of Japanese poetry. And that book dates back to the late seventh century. So this Namiki Yukari Bush Clover 2023 limited edition fountain pen features really beautiful artwork and that's designed by the Kokokai group and they're a highly revered group of artists. And due to the detailed artistry on this pen, it takes many months to expertly handcraft each Bush Clover fountain pen. The release is limited to only 300 pieces worldwide with just 69 of those available in the U.S. The artwork on the barrel you see is Makai Yorushi lacquer work and it's finished with a sprinkling of gold dust using Tokodashi polishing technique. So this is the shimmering Bush Clover and it's illuminated by moonlight. It's gracefully painted in silver makai and red lacquer. They use a variety of makai techniques to create the different aspects of the pen. It is a proprietary cartridge converter fountain pen and it is fitted with a dual tone nib that's 18 karat gold. The cartridge converter fountain pen does feature a threaded cap and it does have a traditional cigar shaped body. The nib is a number 10 18 karat gold nib with rhodium plating to make it that dual tone look. And as you saw, the nib does feature a beautiful depiction of the iconic Mount Fuji silhouette. Shop your limited edition Namiki Yukari fountain pens at pinchley.com and subscribe here for more at pinchley.


Hi, I'm Nicole and welcome to the ProduceMate Simple Kitchen, where you go to your resource for all things fruits and veg. So we're going to be making a really hearty salad which I think is perfect for the colder winter months. Our base is raw brussel sprouts, sliced thin and we've also got a really pretty cabbage here. You could alternatively use a regular green cabbage, a red cabbage or a savoy cabbage. And to the base we're going to add some cilantro, some gala apples from Ontario, some Ontario onions and then we're topping it off with some avocado, walnuts, salt and pepper and a really amazing lemon dressing. And if you want the recipe for that we also have a video, so check it out. So I find it a time saver to prepare my brussel sprouts first with a smaller knife.   You can use a bigger knife to cut them up into small pieces, what we're really looking for in the salad is quite a fine slice so that you don't get chunks of raw brussel sprouts. And we're making a salad today for two people, so I probably am going to use about four to five brussel sprouts each and then one apple between the two. So we've added our brussel sprouts and cabbage to the bowl and now we're going to add our apple. In Ontario we grow commercially over 15 different varieties of apple. So we're really lucky that there's lots of different choices and things to enjoy. The gala is a really good all-round apple because it's got a nice bite to it and it's also not overly sweet. So for this recipe I've chosen a red onion to use, red onions are great in salads because they have a slightly milder flavor than the yellow ones. You can see that the onion is quite small here, just so that you don't get huge chunks of raw onion when you're eating the salad. I would say this is about a quarter of an onion. You can add as much as you like, if you like a lot more, go for it. Now a bit of cilantro, again you can just, you can cut it if you like or just rip it, whatever you prefer. So the thing with cilantro is that you do definitely want to wash it well because it can be quite sort of sandy if you don't, that groutiness will sprinkle that in. And again you could add really any herbs to the salad that you like. I think that this will pair really well though with the sort of bolder flavors we've got going on here. A bit of avocado which will add some creamy texture. You know an avocado is ripe when you press it with your thumb and it gives gently to pressure. Also the little pit part here will pop out easily when it's ripe. So you'll find with avocado and the apple that both will sort of discolor from the air once they're cut. But adding the salad dressing will keep them from turning color. So we're going to do that quite quickly. And so now we're just, we're almost at the end, we're just going to add some walnuts. You could alternatively use sunflower seeds or pumpkin seeds. If you want to be like the salad kits you could add things like dried cranberries. That would also be very nice. So I would, this is a quarter cup. You can add as much as you like. A bit of salt and pepper. And now our lemon dressing. So we're just going to toss that and see how it looks. We can always add a little bit more if we want to. Right, so now we're just going to put these in bowls. This is a pretty generous salad. And so I would say it would be two for a meal. But you could also give it as a side salad or serve it as a family style. And there you have it, another great salad. We hope you like it as much as we do. Please like, comment, and subscribe for more Produce Made Simple. Bye! For all things fruits and veg, it's awesome. Please like, comment, and subscribe for more Produce Made Sea... Oh, bummer! So please. Oh, okay. Bye!


Drug agents in Wadena County have arrested eight people on drug-related charges and have warrants out for three other individuals. Out of the 11 people, eight of them are charged with varying counts of selling controlled substances. Two others are charged with selling a simulated non-controlled substance as an narcotic. The other individual is charged with possession of a controlled substance in drug paraphernalia. The Wadena County Sheriff's Office and agents from the West Central Drug Task Force were assisted by the Wadena Police Department and the Sabika Police Department in making the arrests. The cases will be prosecuted by the Wadena County Attorney's Office. To see the complete list of the charges, check out this story on our website.


Yeah, a couple of reminders before that. Don't forget about the leftover tickets that you will be able to pick up from the Red Hat HR person near the Exposition Center. You can pick them up at 1440. So go there to pick the leftover tickets. Please don't forget after the presentation this one and all the others to leave a feedback. You can see the URL on the whiteboard. Please delete the feedback. So the presenters know how well they did. Some of them will get some prizes at the end. And may I introduce Florian with a presentation about a very cool package, which is NF tables, the feature of ID tables. So welcome, everyone. The agenda of the talk will be roughly, I will first explain what NF tables is and why it's being graded. Then we will have a look at some of the underlying features in the kernel that NF tables is using so that we are on the same page with regard to some of the terms. Then we will talk about the limitations that IB tables has, and then we will look at how NF tables avoids these and solves some of the underlying problems. And then there will be a couple of examples of things that you can do with NF tables that you can't do with IB tables. So NF tables simply is a new packet classification framework based on lessons learned from IB tables. It was first presented publicly at the Netfield workshop in Paris in 2008, and then finally merged into the kernel roughly two years ago in 2014 for 3.13. So what's being replaced? Most simply speaking, IB tables, IB6 tables, ART tables, and EB tables, the latter one, which is the bridge filtering framework. So all these user space tools go away and they are replaced with a new one. And at the same time, we are also replacing the kernel implementations that does the IB tables, IB6 tables, and so forth, runtime evaluation of the rule set in the kernel. What we do not replace is the connection tracking engine, network address translation engine that stays the same. And we are also reusing the existing net filter hooks. We will look at what that is. And the user space packages like contract tools, contract daemon, and ulogd for packet logging also remains unchanged. So we are not replacing everything. It's just basically the IB tables and IB6 tables and so on. Now the more interesting question is why, because you usually do not replace something that just works, and IB tables works pretty well. But it does have some fundamental problems in its architecture that are not resolvable without changing so much that basically a rewrite is the only way to do it. One problem with IB tables is there was just IB tables. And it did only do IPv4 filtering. And when IPv6 stack was added, what happened? Basically, IB tables was copied from IPv4 net filter to IPv6 net filter. And then someone replaced all the IPv4 addresses in the code with IPv6 addresses. And then you had the same code base twice. And the same happened again with bridge and with ARP. And so basically, we have the same code four times in the kernel with slight variances for the different protocol families. And at the same time, we have very similar extensions that basically just do the same thing for different protocols like TCP or SCTP. It's getting out of hand. And at the same time, user space has all these different tools. So if you have to do bridge filtering, you can't use IB tables. You have to use EB tables. And the greatness is it also has slightly different syntax than IB tables, which is greatly confusing. And people that want to use IB tables in a programmatic fashion also basically lose on every scale because there is no way to do it race-free and to learn what rules exist. So it's basically a mess and there's no library that you can use for IB tables. There is IPTC, but that's an internal library for IB tables and it does not have an exported stable API. So basically, if you use that and you are on your own anyway and there's no support whatsoever. So what are net filter hooks? I mentioned that briefly. So basically, if you look at the kernel source code and grab through that, don't worry. There will be not much C code in this presentation, so it's a call down. You will see a bunch of inline functions or macros called nf underscore hook that are sprinkled across the kernel and placed in strategic places. And basically all this does is it provides other kernel modules a point where they can register functions that will then be called by the kernel for a packet. And these functions then have control over what to do with the packet. Like drop the packet, move on to the next hook, or queue it to use a space, things like that. And all the net filter features, like IP tables, connection tracking and so forth, use these nf hooks. So they register with the kernel, something like I want to see packets that arrive or that come in and please call this function when that happens. There are five of these hooks in the IP stack. Then another five in the IPv6 stack, similar for the bridge. And if you look at the hook names, and you have used IP tables before, then you will instantly recognize those names because they are also matched with the built-in chains that IP tables offers. So for instance, IP tables filter. Yes? No, sorry. Sorry. Can you add a second monitor? I don't have a second output device here, sorry. No, sorry. My bad. But fortunately, there's not much missing from the slide. Because the only thing that you can't see is basically the last two letters of post routing. There is not nothing else on the right side. So the basic idea is that you place these hooks in places where you want to have particular properties. So for instance, if you want to do network address translation and redirect packets to the local machine, you have to change the IP address. And if you change that after the routing decision has taken place, then it doesn't do what you want. So you have to do this before the routing happens. So that's why there's the hook in pre-routing before the routing decision. Then you might want to have different filtering for packets that are being forwarded and for packets that are arriving to the local machine. So that's why you have different hooks for forwarding and for input and so on. Now for IP tables. IP tables, example rule and things that come to mind here is IP tables limitation. You can only have one target. That's the thing that is after the J. So if you accept, in this example, but at the same time you would want to lock or to mark, you can't do that in one rule and you have to copy the rule or you need to help a chain or whatever. Rules are always stored in a binary blob in the kernel. So what IP tables actually only does, it translates a textual representation into a binary one. It has no idea what it's actually doing. The only thing that a user space knows about is how to parse the text and how to translate that into a binary representation. It has no idea what TCP is or what a port is. It only does the translation. Furthermore, if you run this command and to add a rule, then it doesn't add a rule, but what it actually does, it first fetches the entire existing rule set from the kernel to fetch this huge array of structures and it mangles that somehow to add this rule into the blob and then commits everything back to the kernel. In other words, when two persons or two programs at the same time try to add rules, then one of the ads will fail and silently disappear because of this race condition because IP tables does not guarantee atomicity for individual rules, only for switching off tables. And that's something that you can't resolve in IP tables because that's just basically how it works. The kernel has no idea of what changed in the rule set because it only sees old blob versus new blob, and so it can't really tell you what has changed and that would also be a desirable feature so that you could, for instance, monitor what rules are being added or removed, but it's not possible to do that. And user space has no idea what the rule set is actually doing, so you can't do optimizations in user space on the rule set unless you would go the full way and basically duplicate the kernel part that does the evaluation of the rule set in user space. So in user space you can't do things like eliminate dead rules, you can't detect things like, here I could rearrange these rules to make it match faster or things like that because user space doesn't know what the rules do. At the same time, we have a linear evaluation of the rule set. So in IB tables it starts at the top and then one rule after another is evaluated until a final decision is made like drop or accept. We have four times code application as already mentioned for all the families that we support. IB tables hasn't seen any extension since it was added and it's basically IB tables from 2001 and we still have a reader writer lock in the main traverser, in other words, it does show up when you profile bridge traffic and it's really becoming a problem and it has to be fixed some way. IB tables limitations are being worked around by adding various matches, so for instance, because you can't test for two different ports in a single rule, those IB tables, someone added a multi-port match and then you can give it up to eight ports or nine ports, I'm not sure, in a single rule and if you need more than that, you already have to add again two rules. There is IP set, which is an external tool that you can use to efficiently match on white or black lists. So you can use the IP set tool to generate a list of addresses or a map of addresses and then use the IP tables IP set match to directly decide whether it's a hit match or a non-match to avoid IP tables change with tens of thousands of rules, which you would have to do otherwise. There's the BPF match and the U32 match to match on packets where IP tables doesn't have an existing match, so for instance, if you want to match on, for instance, DNS packets, that's the only way to do it, you have to use the BPF match or something like that. We have a lot of duplicate functionality, so for instance, someone wanted to add the ability to match on IP comp packets and what did they have to do? They had to copy the authentication header match and then replace it so that it would work for IP comp. There are some ridiculous matches for special cases. For instance, someone needed to do load balancing for policy routing and they didn't want to add 100 mark rules, so they added this hash mark target, which computes a hash over the packet and then sets the mark based on that hash and that's a special feature that not many people need and IP tables should have offered a generic way to do that without having to add all those special case features. Then we have magic tables, for instance, the Manga table is special in a way that if during output the mark changes, then it will do a rerouting, but that's something you just have to know because the kernel does it behind your back. So what does NF tables do differently? A lot, it turns out. So first difference is all the protocol details are in user space, not in the kernel. The kernel, it's exactly the other way around. The kernel has no idea what TCP is. User space knows what TCP is and user space knows where in a packet the TCP ports are located and things like that. The kernel is just dump and it's just basically for lack of a better term, a virtual machine that offers registers and then operations that work with these registers. So the NF tables tool generates codes or instructions to do what the user has specified and the kernel will just dumply follow those instructions without knowing what's actually being tested. So the kernel has no idea that for instance the TCP destination port is being tested or the TCP flex or whatever just follows instructions like look at this register and check if it's this number and things like that. The main focus of NF tables is about efficient rural representation. So you can express a lot with NF tables that you can't do with IP tables. We will see in examples what that exactly means. So we replace the kernel implementation of the IP tables evaluation of data rules and we change all the user space tools go away and there's a single program called NFT which handles everything. And NFT is also, at the same time, IP tables save, IP tables restore, IP tables and so forth. So you can give it a file and it will load all the rules in a file. You can start it in interactive mode and then you have a shell like prompt where you can input rules directly and you can also add rules on the command line. From a kernel point of view, there are no matches or targets anymore because that distinction is something IP table specific and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So the term match and target has no meaning anymore and it's just called expression. And an expression can be terminal like accept or it can be non-terminal like for instance log so you can have as many actions as you want in the same rule as long as those are not terminal so you can't accept and drop at the same time because well, that's not possible. So we basically have two groups. We have some basic expressions like immediate which is just numbers. We have expressions like payload which basically just asks the kernel to load. Some bytes from a particular offset and stuff it into a register. Then we have expressions that work with those registers like is it equal to, is it larger than, less than, not equal, we have bit operations so you can do a flag test. Counter is also no longer built in so if you want packets to increment the byte and packet counter you also have to say, you have to specify this counter expression on the command line. There are a bunch of special and more complex expressions such as contract which is the same as the contract match in IP table so you can check if a packet matches an existing connection or not or if it's related and things like that. And there is the meta expression which basically replace a whole lot of IP tables matches like mark for instance or you can use it to fetch the input interface name and test for that and everything basically that is somehow not related to the content of the packet itself but somehow to the meta data. So the associated was the packet like the firewall mark, the input interface, the output interface that is being used, even the processor ID that is currently used to process this packet. The user space front end has a new grammar which is somewhat similar to what TCP dump uses. User space parses this grammar and then translates that into the NF tables instruction set. Another thing that is very different from IP tables is that the user space and the kernel representation of the rules are completely distinct in IP tables. It's the user space and the kernel uses the same format so you can't make changes without breaking everything. And in NF tables the kernel has a completely different understanding of what a rule looks like which greatly helps this optimization. We have netlink as an intermediate format and user space will just serialize that in this format and the kernel will just do some sanity checking on that just to see that for instance you don't have infinite loops in your rule set but it doesn't do anything other than basic sanity checking and will just translate that to its internal representation. So if you look at this rule there and you fire up NF table in a debug mode and it will output the instructions that it has generated based on the input. So for instance this here, 22, is this number here because that's the network byte order representation of the number 22. And we see it has generated a payload instruction to fetch from the transport header something and it stuffs it into register one and it does a compare and if that succeeds it will place the verdict accept into the verdict register zero. And what it also did, it prepended another payload instruction beforehand because you're asking for TCP port 22 not for instance for UDP or something else. So it automatically generates this dependency instruction to fetch the protocol header from the IP header takes that into register and six that's TCP. So it will check if it's TCP and then proceed and otherwise it doesn't match and it will leave here. Any questions so far? Yes. I have a question on the last slide before this one. There was about the interface in the meta tax interface input interface now I'm able to match the interface like HDA, EDH plus. So I can match several interface but unfortunately nowadays the system the changes the interface's name so it's almost not possible anymore. Will this implement this feature so I can match multiple different names of interfaces? So the question was whether you can match multiple interface names with the input interface names meta match and the answer is yes. We will see in some examples how that works because it's not just limited to interface names basically you can match a lot of things at the same time with NF tables in a single rule. We will see that in a couple of next slides. The other thing that is different than in IP tables with regard to interface naming is that there are two types of interface naming matches. The one that actually checks for the name and there's also another one that internally checks for the interface number so that for instance when system D or something else renames the interface and it will still continue to match if you use the one form which matches on the index because the index is unique and stays the same all the time or if you use the other form then it will no longer match. An interface index is always unique. Yes, yes, yes, exactly. Between reboots it can change, yes, but it does not change while the system is running which this was about. If you, okay, I don't know what the system D does so it doesn't do. So yes, this is basically the most confusing feature for people that are used to IP tables because in NF tables there are no tables. Well, that's not exactly true. There are no built-in tables. So what NF tables does it ships by default. A few template files conveniently named something like IP filter or IP six filter. And this here is basically how do I get the IP tables, filter table and NF tables? And what you have to do is you have to say, I want a new table and the table should be called filter. Could be any name in the IP stack, not for instance in the bridge or in the IPv6 stack. And this is table is basically just a container for chains and then you create chains here. And this tells NF tables that it should tell the kernel where to hook it up. So you want a hook at input with a particular priority and you want a hook in forward and you want a hook in output. So for instance, if you don't want or if you don't need output filtering then you could just remove this chain output and it would also help a bit with performance because the kernel would just skip the NF output hook completely in the kernel instead of just redirecting it to an empty chain that doesn't do anything. Same for a mangle table. There is also something interesting here. There is no hidden magic anymore with tables or chains. You have to specify a particular type if you want magic behavior. So for instance to replicate mangals or IP tables mangle output behavior to do a rerouting when packet mark has changed then you have to tell the kernel that it needs to do some extra work when evaluating this chain. This here is an arbitrary example. So first is the family that you want to hook. The name can be anything that you want. Chain name can be anything that you want. The filter type means basically just the default. I want to accept or drop and nothing else. Drop means I want to want NF tables to re-consult the routing table after it's done. And this here is important to specify which one of the five built-in hooks that you want your packets to be hijacked at. This is a family overview. So basically for ARP tables you would use table ARP, for EB tables you would use table bridge and so forth. There are two new tables or new families I should say in NF tables which is INET and NetEF but we will look at those soon. Other important changes in NF tables are finally the rule replacement is atomic so if several instances try to inject rules at the same time and it succeeds then the rule will exist in the kernel and that's it because all the rule replacement is transaction-based. There's a unified tool, so same syntax regardless of what family you are using. So if you use bridge then you don't have to get accustomed to a different syntax as with EB tables, IB tables, it's just the same. The INET family which is new should help greatly with hosts that use both IPv4 and IPv6 because you no longer have to duplicate all your rules for IB tables and IPv6 tables. So if you want to accept say SSH inbound you just accept TCP, DPPOR 22 and the INET family and it will just work for both IPv4 and IPv6. Also greatly sought after feature is the ingress hook in the new NetEF family which allows you to filter packets before they entered IP or IPv6 stack so you can actually filter on raw IP sockets. So if you want to say drop raw IP frames then you can do that in the ingress hook and it's also different in that it allows you to attach rules directly to an interface. Syntax is pretty much exactly the same as early one. You ask for NetEF family, name doesn't matter, doesn't matter, hook name is ingress and you have to specify a device where the rules should be attached to and after that you can use the standard NF table syntax to for instance check for a particular event type and it will generate the required dependencies to make sure that for instance if the device is something other than either of them this will not cause false positives. It's both because for IPsec there is a, IPsec packets travel rules that wise. So you would see, so you would see once you would see the IPsec raw frame and then on the second location you should see it on unencrypted. Just regarding the forms but what happens if you pass IP addresses to that family? That's quite simple. In the background if you say IP source address 1234 then it will inject a dependency that guarantees that this rule is only consulted if it's an IP packet. So it will just work. You can use IPv6 or IP addresses in the NF family, no problem. Now for some of the more interesting features that NF table says, I already mentioned that it integrates sets. What that means is that you can in a single rule use curly brace syntax like this and then you can give it a list of as many addresses as you want. And unlike IP tables it will not expand into multiple rules but if you look at what it actually does it will fetch the source address in this case push it into register and then there's a single lookup instruction that checks whether the address is part of this anonymous map. And based on that it will just match or not match. Yes. It's possible to define a range. Yes it's also, the question was whether it's possible to define a range and yes NF tables also allows you to match on ranges natively without extensions. Another feature is that you can concatenate keys so you can match on address and destination port pairs at the same time. So that's with this means it's a placeholder and that it should expect destination address and port as the content of the set. Yes. The question was whether you can mix IPv4 and IPv6 in one set and the answer is no, not yet. Another feature is named sets and for named sets you can basically reference the set in rule set by a name. So you first have to define a name and tell it you want a new set. Then you have to specify what type is going to be used for instance IPv4 in this case and port number and then you can use it yet followed by the name so add foo here to reference to this set in rule so you can use the set multiple times in the same table and you can also remove and add entries to that set at any time which should be useful for something like fatal ban. Yes. The question was whether if there is support for NF tables and drawwall and I have no idea, sorry. Could you please resolve this discussion later because I'm running out of time and I would like to present all the features. Thank you. So since it's cumbersome to remember all those names you can query the NF tables tool to tell you what it is. So if you say NFT describe and then say something like TCP port and it will tell you INIT service and same for IPv6 or for meta marks and things like that. Next cool features are maps. So for instance if you want to do a lot of net transformations you no longer need a rule for every transformation you can put all of them in a single one with map keyword. So this is basically the address that you are expecting in the packet and that's the address that you want to replace it with. And again there is this lookup instruction that's being used in the background to lookup the content of the set and at the same time it will return something namely this into a register and the net instruction will then just grab whatever in that register and push it into the packet for replacement operations. And that's basically the greatest feature and the most important one because that's the one feature that allows you to very efficiently replace the rule set and it's also something that you can't do with IP tables because now suddenly we have full control over the control flow of the rule set with verdict mapping. So you can say for this IP source address except for this one drop, for this one jump to this chain, jump to that chain, all in a single rule there is no overhead in doing a linear evaluation as with IP tables. So this is basically you can represent everything with a tree or a lot of decision tree. For debugging, we now have an equivalent to something for something like the routing monitor that you have for the IP route package. So if you launch NFT in monitor mode then it will log every rule that is being added. It will log when a rule goes away and you can just check what's happening on the computer. This is also very useful for tools like FireWaldy because now they can learn when someone else other than them starts to change rules and it allows them to discover what's happening outside of their control. For debugging, IP table says a feature called trace. You add a rule with the trace keyword and then after that you're basically on your own, you have to look at the current ring buffer because it now starts to fill with such crazy output for every packet that is being matched to somewhere in your rule set and it gives you line numbers and then you have to basically look at the IP table safe output and then somehow map this output that you're getting to your rule set and then you have to figure out yourself why this matched or it didn't match. NANF tables, that's integrated natively now. So you also add a trace rule and after that you no longer have to do anything special, you just fire up the trace monitor mode and then it will dump directly every rule that is being matched and not just a line number, you will also see an ID number so you can figure out which, if there are two packets that are matching at the same time, you can tell them apart and you know this packet is going through this rule and this policy and it matched somewhere in this verdict map and there was a jump verdict and that should allow debugging in a much more simpler way and it's also internally implemented via Netlink so you could also subscribe to that automatically in a programmatic fashion and get Netlink parsable data to allow say a graphical representation of what packets are being matched. So last slide, so we should be on time. So future work, the one outstanding thing is a high level library for third party applications to integrate with that will happen unlike with IB tables where there's no such thing and there will never be such a thing. It's also not yet entirely feature complete so some of the popular magic extensions from IB tables that we don't have at the moment is policy matching for IPsec, rate estimator, reverse pass filtering is missing, hash limit is still missing but it's being worked on so that will happen soon. Some targets are missing, for instance, CCP MSS mangling, the contract target is missing. There is no NFQ and contract matching for the bridge family so far and we also have not yet done any extensive performance testing and optimization work on NF tables. Although NF tables itself should be quite fast because there are no locks anywhere in the evaluation path and there are no default counters anymore so a lot of the performance penalties that IB tables has to pay by design are no longer there anyway. If you want to look at NF tables I highly recommend this NFD-NF table speaky which should have a lot of examples for you to look at and yeah, any questions? It was installed in 4K. Is this some command where I can say NFD pick up these rules and write them? Yes, so the question was if you have an IB tables rule set is that something to translate the rules that are NF tables and the answer is yes, there is a conversion tool being worked on and it's slowly, as we extend NF tables to replace a particular feature that is only available IB tables that's being extended to give you the optimum output for, yeah. RFC 1918 for the private data source. So the question was there is this curly brace syntax to match the IP address and the question was whether there is an alias to for instance match on RFC 1,918 addresses. The answer is no but NF tables does have a defined feature so you could create a define that expands to this list. Basically we could even add it to the NF tables default config file. It would be something to consider again. Yes, this presentation? Yes. Yes. Okay, I'm eating and there's somewhere is Alex. We are for the session chat.


The platform for youth and women development is calling for aggressive grassroots voters' education to enable mass participation in the 2023 January elections. The group who spoke through its Executive Director, Kingdom Ogwe Bunam, commanded the Independent National Electoral Commission for the success recorded at both the AQT and the just-concluded Ocean Governorship elections. Kingdom War released statistics of voters' participation in the nation's electoral process. From the 1999 elections to date, called for mass grassroots participation to create awareness and reduce money inducements like votes buying in the electoral process. He said the group work extracts the process of voters' education from September, which will terminate around February of next year 2023. The grassroots voter education program dot dot excise targets Nigerian citizens, especially registered voters from the 36 states of the several and 74 local government areas in the six regions, geopolitical zones comprising of the northeast, the southeast, the south-south, the south-west, the north-central regions, providing them with the knowledge and information they need to actively participate in electoral processes and also foster sense of trust in the INEC and the electoral processes in Nigeria. This campaign contributes actively to create a vibrant civil society that engages actively in democracy in democracy development and understand the support that leading roles of INEC in electoral administration.


Seven, six, five, four, three, two, one. Welcome to the vlog. It's good to be back talking to you guys. Today I put out a post on Instagram asking what you guys wanted to see next on the videos and I had a lot of people comment and give suggestions for videos and this question has come up a lot and that question is how do I section my haircuts and why do I section my haircuts the way I do? So today what I wanted to do is go over that with you guys. So I had two people ask pretty much the same question. The first one was Nikki Marcel on Instagram asked differences between sectioning and why you would section a certain way, example, horseshoe, square, triangle, diamond, four sections, etc. So I'm definitely going to break that down. We also had a question from Miss, I believe it's Miss Sweet Cheeks. I'd be interested in seeing more about how you decide to part the hair and a certain way prior to the cut. I know you base it off head shape and the end result you're going for. I still feel like I have trouble implementing that on a real client. So awesome. Great questions. Now I want to break it down for you guys so you fully understand why I do what I do. Alright guys so let's break down the sectioning that I do for every single haircut. Like I said I always base it on the shape of the head and on the end result of the haircut that I'm looking to create. The standard of my sectioning is following the parietal ridge. Parietal ridge is that first kind of round shape, it separates the top from the bottom of the head. So I section a long parietal ridge down across mid-crown, mid-crown is another curve that separates the top and the bottom and then I go back around parietal ridge. That creates that horseshoe section that you guys always see in my haircuts. Then I decide am I going to create a haircut that pushes the weight off of her face or pushes the weight towards her face. That's all going to be based on how I create this next division point in the head shape.  I think the key to understanding sectioning is really understanding the corners of the head and that is why I section so many different little pieces. That leads me into the back. We have the back division so if you want to divide the right and the left side of the back there's a corner there and then I go across the occipital bone which is another corner in the head shape. So then I separate from the occipital bone down, occipital bone up so it gives me these four sections in the back. Alright so I want to dive a little bit deeper into this question because it was also asked why you part the hair certain ways. For example, horseshoe square triangle diamond four sections. So let's just start off with horseshoe. The reason I put a horseshoe in the top of the hair is because that's going to be the most forgiving type shape on the haircut. If I went and created a stronger corner in the haircut then I'm going to be dealing with that later on in the cut. So this is a little bit softer way to go about the top. Now there are some cases where I create a rectangle on the top of the head. That's just if I don't mind putting a little bit of heaviness in the corners then I go with that. If I want it to be a little bit softer I go with the horseshoe shape. So that's horseshoe and square. Triangle and diamond are a little bit different to me. Cool thing about using a triangle and a diamond in a haircut is that you're going to be able to take a fatter base and make it skinnier or take a skinnier section and make it fatter and work around the head. So triangles are a good way.  That's why creating pie shaped sectioning in the crown area works so well because it's an easy way to shift yourself, stay consistent and work around corners in a haircut. So I like to use triangles when I'm working around a round of the head and I also love to use triangles when I'm working with disconnection because it diffuses itself out. And the last one was the basic four sections. I don't really use this sectioning that often unless I'm coloring hair because I believe that if I just did the basic four quadrants what I'm doing is I'm opening myself up for inconsistency because I have to work around the rounds of the head without sectioning it away so I can keep myself organized. This is my basic sectioning guys. I hope that it helps you when you're sectioning out your haircuts so that you have a purpose for everything that you're doing but use this as a standard and then develop on top of that what fits your style. So thank you guys so much for checking this out. Make sure you hit the subscribe button below. Check out all the haircuts. Now that you've seen the sectioning you'll understand more of why I cut the way that I do. Thank you guys for watching. I'll see you on the next video. Thanks.


Confession time! I've considered getting plastic surgery. I know what you guys are thinking, oh my god, like, really you? You're so perfect. How could you of all people think I'm getting plastic surgery? And if you weren't thinking that, why not? I grew up without the internet and to be honest, I was probably better for it in many ways. I used to think that I was like the bees' knees.  I didn't even like wear deodorant until like my 20s. I just was like, oh natural. I didn't learn to wear makeup until my mid-20s or so.  Then I got into the computer more specifically Instagram and I was like, something here is not like the others and things that I didn't even recognize were wrong way before. I was now super obvious. Like, whoa, that's a problem. Now don't get me wrong.  Like that's not a mystery to anybody walking a mile away. What I didn't know is that my nose is crooked. That came really, really recently.  I won't say very because I don't want to make it seem as if I'm walking around looking like a blowfish. I know I don't have it that bad but the bottom part of my face is really chubby. Like I have a lot of baby fat here. When I moved to LA got poor and began eating on a dollar a day. I lost a bit of weight. Weight that I couldn't really lose in Toronto. I went from being in the 130s to the high 120s and I saw a big change in a lot of my body and only like a little change if that in my face specifically in the lower parts of my cheeks. And when they say the camera adds 10 pounds what they mean by that is the camera sees things in two dimensions. So if you have cuts in your arms when you go flat all of a sudden you just had this smooth arm. So unless you have very prominent and defined features you can tend to look a lot bigger than you actually are or more bloated. Now for someone like myself who doesn't have you know that cave I felt like a balloon face and so I became very self-conscious of how I looked on camera to the point that I went to a plastic surgeon's office. I went to one in Toronto and I was like look like this rubber tire around the bottom of my face has to go what can you guys do?  Like it's just not worth it. What you should probably do is get injections in your cheeks. I see that face all the time around Beverly Hills. It's the new race. It's like Asian mixed with cat mixed with Kim Kardashian with a dash of leprechaun. I tried like to kind of make peace with it after that appointment and then months and months later I still felt like God like this is not going away and I just feel like I really want help. So I went to a plastic surgeon office in Los Angeles and you know for a fact if they could cut off your foot to make an extra dollar they would do it and even they told me like honestly sweetie just you're better off adding more bulk than taking away because it places a risk on all the nerves in your face things may not be as even as you think it can make weird dimples and ripples I was then like I'm just stuck with this chubby face but I thought that's kind of a piss poor attitude and what I'm doing this channel with the sensual journey is really about discovering your femininity and working for your sensuality working for your best self but enjoying the process of doing so. So I looked up on YouTube what someone can do for chubby cheeks and there were all these awesome facial exercises and they said for 20 minutes a day if you do these exercises you end up actually working out your face and you can lose fat you can create more definition and it's great for anti-aging as well too so I thought what a great proactive process to try to make sure that my shit don't get droopy in the next couple of years and then I thought to myself why not combine this with something that I always want to do but never really do which is oil pulling I get a tablespoon of coconut oil it's hella hot in my apartment so it's now coconut juice I put it in my mouth and that is my plastic surgery story everybody out there and I would love to hear what yours are has their own struggle with acceptance I think the internet specifically Instagram makes it so much harder to come to grips with the fact that you look the way that you look because other people look like Jesus Christ Superstar and you feel like why do I look like that dirty shrub over there but you don't you don't look like a dirty shrub and the more you tell yourself that the less that you're actually going to be that Jesus Christ Superstar and have that glow about you I wish I could go back to the days when I was really just so in tune with myself and so happy with who I was not because I looked better or I thought that I looked better than other people but because I genuinely didn't compare myself and there's no one to compete with and you get to win the gold trophy and I wish you guys nothing but gold trophies and if you do decide to go the plastic surgery route because you can't do facial exercises to make it a little bit better I definitely don't judge whatsoever I totally understand and accept it but of course we all hope that we can find that self-love without the scissors liking this video subscribing and sharing are three simple things that you guys can do that make a huge difference in helping me to create more content a lot more frequently so please do not be shy with the buttons booze