Good morning, good afternoon and good evening everyone. Warmly welcome to the SEI Currents 22. I am Mons Nilsson, Director of the Stockholm Environment Institute who is hosting this online event. For more than 30 years, the Institute has developed and conveyed scientific knowledge for better decision-making on sustainable development priorities around the world. In our current strategy period, which runs from 2020 to 2024, we have a strong focus on priorities for change in society that we're trying to induce. There are actually 17 of them, and I won't go through them all, but they are within the broad areas of reducing climate risk, securing resilient ecosystems and natural resources, and human health and well-being. SEI, Stockholm Environment Institute, has its headquarters in Sweden and was conceived in Sweden as an act of parliament in 1989, but today it is a global organization, and it has research centers across Western and Eastern Europe in Southeast Asia, Eastern Africa, Latin America and the US. This means that we have our ear to the ground when it comes to also regional, national and local community level issues and agendas. And we think we have a sense through our network of research centers and our partners about the concerns and decision agendas and knowledge needs of governments, local organizations, businesses, researchers. And we try to be responsive to addressing those needs. So while ensuring that we have the highest standards of scientific integrity and independence vis-à-vis these actors. So why this event currents? Well, when you follow the Sustainable Development Area for 30 years, you know that it's become a cliche that the world is changing faster than ever or that this very moment is more important than ever, that we are at the branching point, et cetera. So I won't say that, but I will say that unpredictable movements and uncertainties have become huge on matters such as security, international relations, the future regional cooperation, as well as on technology, practices and social movements. Climate impacts and action are increasing faster than ever. New challenges to democratic governance and multilateral institutions we work with are mounting. And the pandemic is changing both domestic governance and international relations, maybe permanently. So in this rapidly changing world, our horizon scanning and analysis of what's going on thinking ahead has become more and more important. So we build in this more and more in our regular work, we use this kind of horizon scanning, both at the global management level, assessing risks, for example, to our operations or at the programmatic level, assessing new needs for knowledge and which of these needs can translate into opportunities for research and engagement for us. And I think we have a bit of a special reach and perspective in this record. So we decided that this information can probably be of more general interest, not just to ourselves, but to our partners and our audiences. So it's the first time we're doing this publicly and really looking forward to the deliberations. So what will happen now is we will have a brief presentation about SEI Currents 2022. Robert Watt, our communications director will present and then we have a distinguished panel that will react and discuss from their different perspectives and experiences. So with that, without further ado, I'll hand over to Rob Watt. Please, Rob. Thank you very much, Mons. Hello, everybody. So I'm just gonna say a few words of introduction to compliment what Mons said about the currents that we've identified. She's gonna tell you a little bit about why we chose the word currents here. So I think we wanted to make sure that we chose a word that wasn't just thinking in terms of, well, these are our predictions for what's going to happen, but rather a sense that, as Mons has said, there is volatility, fluctuation and uncertainty and currents felt like a better word. It also want to give everybody the idea of getting into the mindset that we should be really thinking about also how these currents might weave in and out of each other, how they interact, pushing, pulling, diverting or accelerating these different trends, but also the sense of a flow. Should we go with the flow or swim against it? So that's the idea for using this word currents, to get you in the mood for what I'm now going to summarize for you, because we identified seven currents and three background factors. And those background factors, I like to think of a sort of prevailing winds, things that are really going to be present in the background and influencing pretty much all of these seven currents. And those prevailing winds are perhaps not very surprising for anybody. The first one, Ian, could you go to the next slide? Thank you. It is simply the pandemic. COVID-19 continues to upend our world and it's fair to say, I think that the pandemic is a, if not the major policy preoccupation for countries and communities still. However, it's quite clear that disruption and recovery are playing out very differently for the rich and the poor and poverty among the already poor is rising and that's exacerbating existing debt traps for the least developed countries and increasing instability in what may already be unvulnerable places. And on the other hand, we see that record smashing stimulus packages in developed countries. We hope now to see the shoots of this promised green and inclusive recovery in the next 12 months over the period of 2022. But will we see those or will we begin to detect signs that economic recovery has become an excuse to delay the sustainability agenda? So the pandemic is very much there in the background. And I think it's also an important factor in thinking in terms of geopolitical relations, reducing vaccine and health inequalities will determine not only the short-term health impacts, but it will also govern some of medium-term economic prospects and those long-term relationships between rich and poor. The second of these prevailing wins is the development imperative. Very important for us when thinking about climate and sustainability to bear in mind that for many countries, development and economic development as the foundation of social and societal services is absolutely fundamental. And we need to make sure that that is also in the back of our mind as being a key factor for many of these trends. And lastly, net zero. Net zero has become very much a key cornerstone of many policies. Obviously the COP26 meeting in Glasgow established a number of new targets around net zero. For some pretty major economies. And so we're gonna see that being a key factor in thinking about the plans and the proposals that might be coming up later this year. But a warning sign perhaps already that there may be, as this becomes, if you like, the new normal, net zero is the new normal, there may be pushback, there may be wins that actually are say, are countering this progress towards net zero, calling into question the policies and potentially even the underlying need to address climate change as quickly as we should. So those are three prevailing wins, but now let me go into the seven currents. And our first of the seven currents is naturally enough about climate. And it's really about moving the climate agenda from promises to accountability. We expect the dissonance between these promises, the targets, the goals, and the action required to meet them. And that dissonance we expect to get louder during the course of this year. We expect across the world to call for climate accountability to grow. And the target for these calls for accountability will be governments, companies. They will also be about making sure that rainwashing delay aren't used. We think that the public, social society organizations, youth and possibly even investors will be driven to call for greater accountability and transparency by the realities of the climate crisis, the actual visible effects on floods and forest fires, for example. We're also knowing during the course of this year that there's going to be new stark scientific evidence and grow acknowledgement that extreme weather events are caused by climate change and people's livelihoods and security are threatened. We also expect youth activists to continue to lead the way. So we think the turn to accountability is the only real response to their rallying cry of no more blah, blah, blah. So our second current is around the increase in commodity prices. And we've called it debating the commodity supercycle because there actually may be a number of different reasons for the increase in commodities. But we do see that in recent years that those prices have increased. Emerging markets are driving demand in products such as soy, beef and Palmer. And then the transition to net zero emissions is also pushing the price of materials such as copper and lithium to new highs. And high demand is increasing competition over what land should be used for. Should it be used for food, minerals, the bio-economy or construction? And at the same time, we have stronger commitments to halt deforestation or protect biodiversity. And those may well also begin to limit the land available for production and extraction. Within these tensions, do we dare to challenge the elephant in the root? Which is our consumption in 2022. Or will we continue to expand land use causing environmental degradation that damages local communities and indigenous groups? Third current is about environmental defenders. Consider these numbers, 377, 117, 56. These numbers show the grim tallies of environmental defenders who lost their lives globally in Southeast Asia and in Columbia in 2020. Over the last 10 years, there's been a threefold increase in the killing of human rights and environmental defenders. And this is matched by a general increase in violence against local communities who are involved in environmental disputes and reflects widening social environmental injustice in part brought about by the pressure consumption places on land use. Two thirds of the human rights defenders who were killed in 2020 worked with environmental and land rights. One third belonged to indigenous groups. It must no longer be the case that protecting ecosystems and natural resources places lives in danger. Environmental defenders should not be the only enforcers of environmental integrity. How and when will this get onto the political agenda in 2022? It's certainly beyond due to get addressed. Our next current is about deploying net zero technology at war speed. We know that deployment of technology at scale is putting policy and politics to the test. We're moving from small pilot projects to huge commercial operations. And these are accompanied by trade-offs such as those for land use and facing big economic questions including huge upfront costs for new and upgraded infrastructure. For example, in the energy sector. Policy is going to need to play an enabling role in this net zero transition. But it will also need to arbitrate. Regulating and collaborating with the private sector to achieve the necessary scale at the necessary speed is imperative. And this is going to put a strain on things like permitting processes and environmental assessments and require policy makers and companies to work out how to get to scale without losing their social license. So if we move on now to our next current which is all about redefining climate finance and justice. There's a new emphasis on the premise that developing countries should receive compensation for the climate change related losses and damages that they already face. And this has the potential to completely redefine the climate justice and role of climate finance. But there are lots of questions. What does historical responsibility for climate change mean for developed countries? Does the loss and damage concept set the stage for thinking about reparations for harm inflicted rather than aid to those in need? So this loss and damage concept really is a striking shift from viewing climate finance as a form of aid to the poor to more of a moral obligation for restitution. Moving on to our sixth current which is about making a just transition from fossil fuels to a new economy. The economies of countries and regions that have long relied on extracting fossil fuels face a turning point. The success of industries that power the new economies will depend on creating more resilient economies that can better manage social risks and environmental concerns. Governments have an opportunity now to tap it into the coming energy transition and address concerns about extractive industries. Early in the pandemic, plummeting demand and prices for fossil fuels gave regions a glimpse of the painful impact the energy transition will have if they're not prepared. It's now time to push through the inevitable transition and create a vision for a different kind of economy, one based on sustainable, low carbon pathways, carefully managing new environmental and social risks. And our last current takes us to Africa and really looks at the amplifying risks that climate change might have for violent conflict in Africa. Just two months ago, the Africa Union's peace and security council issued a document that understood the threat of climate change for the continent's future peace and security. Climate change is leading to greater food and water insecurity. Loss of livelihoods, growing water scarcity and more climate-linked human displacements. Growing competition over natural resources will likely increase tensions on a continent that is experiencing some of the world's most protracted conflicts. There is a real risk that climate change could exacerbate violent conflict in Africa. And next year is the world's attention turns to the UN climate conference could be held in Africa, hosted in Egypt. The focus next year should therefore be on recovery efforts that strengthen resilience and adaptation. So that's my summary of our three background factors and our seven currents. I'll hand over in just a moment but encourage everybody here to go and visit the SEI website SEI.org where you can read seven perspectives from SEI researchers from across SEI's global network and actually get into a bit more detail on each of those seven currents. But it's now a really great pleasure for me to hand over to Laurie Goering who is the climate change editor at Thompson Writers Foundation. Laurie, you're our moderator for a fantastic panel. Thank you very much. Really looking forward to the conversation. Over to you. Thank you so much, Rob. Boy, there is a lot to talk about with that. I think your description of this is currents that interact is so apt because these things all relate to each other so much and changes in one area definitely are influencing the others in huge ways. We have a fantastic panel with us today that's some great people to talk about this with different kinds of backgrounds and expertise. So let me just get ahead and introduce them. First, we have Isabella Luven, Chairperson of the Board of the Stockholm Environment Institute and the former Swedish Minister for the Environment and Climate as well as the former Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden. We also have Wenjira Mfai, Vice President and Regional Director for Africa of the World Resources Institute. We have George Berges, who is an independent strategic advisor for a big range of different NGOs, partnerships and initiatives around climate change and development. And we have Dominic Waray, Special Advisor to the President and CEO of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. We're going to have just a little over 45 minutes to have a conversation about this and really try to dig into some of the expertise that's here and maybe come up with some ideas about how we drive this forward. We are going to lose Dominic about after about 30 minutes into the panel. So we'll make sure that we get some good questions to him and get his views before he has to go on. But following the discussion we're going to have, we'll have about 15 minutes for questions. So please do take advantage of the Q&A option here on this site and get your questions in for the panelists and we'll get to as many of those as we can. So when I listen to Rob, I just think, wow, how do we do all of this at once and fast enough and without creating some kind of big backlash against this effort because it's just too easy to have that happen. I mean, as we've seen in Kazakhstan over the last week or so and plenty of other places. Isabella, I just wanted to get your thoughts on that first. This is such a big range of things to tackle at once, particularly for governments who have a limited amount of headspace and resources and so on to do things where how do you start with all these issues? Well, thank you so much, Laurie. And well, hello everyone. Glad that so many are listening into this very important conversation. Well, I think we are really at crossroads in history as has been repeated so many times. But we also now have the experience of the two years almost of the pandemic. And we saw the first year of the pandemic that when we're talking about climate change that emissions went down. And that was, of course, due to all the aircrafts standing on the ground and people staying at home and less consumption and so on. But now we're seeing a rise in emissions again. And what I'm thinking is that we need to really confront ourselves with the need for sustainable production. And I think all the trends in the crystal ball that Rob raised, I think the one on sustainable production in warp speed and technological leaps is maybe the one that we need to focus on. Because if we can't really produce electricity without emissions, cars and steel and cement and food and clothes and all of that, we're in deep problems. And we hear the scientists are very, very clear that the situation is very urgent when it comes to the emissions, the acidification of our oceans and the state of the cryosphere where we see glaciers are melting in Antarctica. We don't have any time to waste. So how do we get these technological leaps to happen? Well, in Sweden we actually made some substantial progress on that. We have a functioning plant now in the northern Sweden that is now producing the first world's first fossil free steel production made out of green hydrogen rather than coal. And how did we make that happen? I think what we need, we can't just rely on engineers and smart people inventing new technologies, but we need clear policies. And that was what we implemented in Sweden, a very strict climate law and also a platform for cooperation between different actors to make it possible to do this big investment for this state company, but then also economical support. And what I think we have to do is to really make these clear examples that it's possible. It's possible and someone has to lead and show the rest of the world that it's possible. And in the northern Sweden, which has been an area where people moved away because there was no future there, now we see an enormous new vision and believe in the future where thousands of new jobs are being created around these steel companies and another steel company also opened is opening now with the same kind of technology there. So we need to lead by example and I think what we need to do because there's no time to wait. We need to really be very, very focused on these technological leaps and how to do them in an inclusive manner. One lost point and that is also the Stockholm Plus 50 conference that is going to be held this summer in Sweden. It's 50 years since the first ever UN environment conference was held in Stockholm in 1972. And this 50th anniversary, we can't be very proud of what the world has achieved so far after 50 years of discussions and very, very dire projections already back in 1972 or what was going to happen if we didn't really take care of our planet. Now we're here and the focus of Stockholm Plus 50 is sustainable production and consumption. And really also a focus on inclusivity and the future generations. So I think this is a really, really good opportunity to discuss this really and share experiences and see how we can really put all this motion into warp speed as the scientists of SCI were calling for. Thanks Isabella. I think that that show it's possible is actually really important because all this feels like so often like it's really out of reach or that it's just to too many people that don't look at these issues day to day as you do, that it's a very hard thing. So I think there's real worth in that but also showing it can be done in a fair and effective way. One share, what's so interesting about this is we try to do those things that Isabella is talking about. This has big implications for land, for forest, which I know is really close to your heart. And for poorer places in the world that look at Sweden and say, I wish we could be leaping ahead in that way. What do you think? I mean, how realistic is this? How much should we be worrying about these issues for instance over land use now? Thank you. And thank you for those earlier presentations. A very impressive piece of work from SCI. Congratulations. And thank you for having me and the World Resources Institute here as well. I must say that of all of what has been said, I'm struck by the fact that the issue of climate justice, the issue of a just transition ties it all together. It has been mentioned, at least I really enjoyed reading Zoha's piece on climate justice. This is not a new issue. And what is happening is that for the very first time, the issue of climate justice is coming to the fore, not so much because of the classic definition of climate justice, but because of the injustice. I think to talk about climate justice is to really begin to deliberately unpack the injustice involved. Central to the agreements around climate has been this idea, of course, that most of those who are disproportionately affected, the developing countries in particular, have done very little in the face of this challenge that has been caused largely by rich economies as they have industrialized. And we should be honest and serious, therefore, if we're going to really address this issue, and that's why this issue of climate justice tied in very closely with the climate net zero and all of the climate ambitions is that we're far from closing the emissions gap because there's an absolute resistance to making the changes that have to be made. Of course, nature will be our biggest cushion. It has always been, but it is also under attack. And so there's a lot of work to be done around acknowledging the real work that has to happen around climate justice and ensuring that there's finance on the table to address, for example, all of the work that has to go into adaptation. On the issue of loss and damage, it has been one of those that has been off the table for so many years. So it was wonderful to see it come to the fall. But even then, a lot of resistance around really addressing the fact that climate injustice, if we're going to address climate justice, we must address climate injustice and to do so, we need to address what is happening today to economies and to countries that are suffering the impacts of climate change and communities. I was struck, I was in Cairo not too long ago, and I was struck by the story about southern Egypt in Nasswan where the flooding happened and out of those floods, unexpected to anybody was the swarm of poisonous scorpions that attacked residents in that country. How on earth are communities supposed to anticipate and plan and address? This is where the address, loss and damage comes in. And so there should be all of us, should be honest and make sure that we continue to put this issue at the forefront. The other issue I'll mention here is the issue of a just transition. The issue of a just transition, as was mentioned, I'm really glad Matt put it in the very beginning, the idea that developing countries have to continue to consider, especially the world's poor, that a just transition has to be about addressing poverty as the number one priority. They must push through this inevitable transition to create, yes, a different kind of economy, but one that puts energy access and poverty alleviation at the core. So I think those two pieces are really crucial. And honestly speaking, for most climate vulnerable countries, addressing those will address so many of the others. I love the idea of prevailing winds because prevailing winds gives the suggestion that there's winds blowing in a certain direction. What it doesn't say is the impacts of those winds which are completely unanticipated. Thank you so much. I think that's absolutely right, that these issues of justice and just transition really do tie this all together because to do, to make these changes at the speed that we need to make them that scientists tell us has to happen, you can't do that without people behind you and you have to help people see that there is a future for them in these changes and that this is going to achieve some of the goals that they have, not just world leaders at big meetings like COP26. But as you say, it's been really the kind of elephant in the room, this obvious thing that is just not taken up. I mean, we saw what a million pounds put toward a loss in damage fund by Scotland, which is a great first step but so tiny compared to the need and most big countries still absolutely terrified of the word reparations which I was interested to notice you use Rob because that's been such a tender point. George, let me come to you. I know we've worked on a lot of development issues and things around climate change. We were talking earlier, Rob was saying that development is the priority in a lot of places. It's one of the reasons that people don't see switching over to a low-carbon economy as a priority. They see it as reducing poverty and creating this better life. How do you put these things together and see this all achieved? You're on mute, George. Could you unmute yourself? Thanks. Yep, I hope I'm audible now. You are. Thanks, Laurie. And thank you to SCI for this opportunity to share some of my thoughts and experiences on this. Well, while I would agree with the transition currents that have been presented, and I like the way he said the prevailing winds upfront. The context and what I would like to amplify is the context, especially from a developing country perspective. And I think sitting at the vantage point of India, India is like a microcosm of the rest of the world. And I'll give you the reason why. Half of the country is industrialized or part of the developed world. And half of the country is... So we have this complex situation of two countries in one. And that's where I come from. Now, this piece on the transition, one thing that has always been there as a constant is the contrast between the upper half and the lower half. And the contradiction that comes in there. Let me picturize this with what has happened over the last one, one-and-a-half years during the period of this pandemic within my own country. And the numbers are huge. Approximately 700 million people is the lower half, and another 700 million people is the upper half. So that's the kind of numbers.  Now, if I look at the corporate world, just as an example of the industrialized world within my own country, three or four of the largest corporates in my country have at bumper profits during the... Looks like George is freezing up a little. Let's hope his internet recovers. That's another thing of division between the haves and haves and aughts is often the case. The haves and haves and aughts is often this internet access that makes it possible for us to do these things. Let's give him just another couple of seconds and we'll see if he comes back. If not, we will go on to ask another question and come back to George. Let me switch. While we're waiting for George's internet to resurrect itself, let's go to Dominic. One of the questions, I think, in all of this... Oh, George is on his way back. Let's see if we can get him. George, can you hear us? George, can you hear us now? You're on perfect. Okay, yeah, please continue. Sorry, as I was mentioning, during the last one, one and a half years, the three or four largest corporations in this country have at bumper profits, have managed to attract bumper investments. In fact, the highest in their lifetime. There is an artificial market boom, which is resulting because the market indices are based on these large companies. And in the process, the CEOs have also had some of the best bonuses in the last one and a half years. Let me contrast this. Let me contrast this. So this is one world in India that is going on. Let me contrast this. This is what has happened to the lower half of about 700 million people. And I placed two contexts of the lower half. Many of you would have watched on television about 100 million, 200 million migrant labor from the cities walking thousands and thousands of kilometers back home. It was as if to the rest of us in India, these people never existed. And when there was a lockdown proclaimed, they were supposed to survive in the city on love and fresh air. Now, we didn't even consider them as being human beings.  What has happened to them after about a third of them have remained at home and the rest come back. The third of them who have remained at home have put additional pressure on the land and the natural resource base that cannot absorb them. So there's a climate issue going on there with further pressure added there. For those who have come back, they go through the uncertainty every day because we have this half lockdown, semi-lockdowns and in whatever happens, whether it's a night curfew, it is these people who lose their jobs. So they live in the cities now for the rest of them who have come back with uncertainties every day. So, George, how do you get those people a better life within this scenario that we're talking about here of trying to move fast on climate change and really give them a more solid base so this doesn't keep happening? One of the major areas, and this is where the question of defining green jobs. One of the areas that there are possibilities, two-thirds of it is in the small and medium enterprises. So recycling as an industry for small and medium, what can be labeled as affirmative action in terms of procurement? At least 50% should come from green jobs and green SMEs which can employ these people in an environmentally neutral fashion. And if that does not take place, we are just in for trouble. We were talking and that's where I want to place it in the context of some of the currents. This conversation of net zero has actually no meaning to this set of people within our countries itself. For the simple reason, basically we are saying, we are closing the environmental space to you guys tomorrow. Today we'll do some compensation in neutralizing and adjusting the account books, but tomorrow we are closing the space because it's already occupied. So how much do you think those businesses and the government are recognizing that? I mean, I know that, for instance, the government work guarantee program has been reoriented a bit to do projects that help on climate adaptation and some things like that, but do businesses recognize their role in this or see that they have a responsibility to help? Let me put it from the case of the two sets of people. Businesses are recognizing it. They know it's a survival issue for them. They know the people, the last time they marched home, next time they will march into our homes and our industries. So the environmental migration within our countries is going to be dangerous because people will say, enough is enough. We're going to walk in. It belongs to us also. And this is where I see globally what's happening in India. People could march into other countries. Yeah, I mean, we saw in this world the World Economic Forum report yesterday, that was social cohesion ended up being one of the big worries right behind the environmental ones around these kind of issues. And that if those issues aren't dealt with, it's going to be very hard to deal with the environmental ones. I think that brings us nicely to dominate. You know, business has a big role to play in this. Some of the people yesterday were saying that, in fact, government really struggles to move fast enough in a lot of places to put in place regulation to try to bring this about. And that business can be more nimble in adjusting because they're used to things changing all the time. I mean, do you think business can be a major actor in driving this or where are they? Is that happening anyone? Laurie, thank you very much. And it's a pleasure to be here. And to have the World Business Council for Sustainable Development into this panel. So like anything in life, this is for kind of like, welcome to mainstreaming. You know, the seven currents that Rob set out, I mean, there's complexity and interaction between them. We're in a world, as has been explained, where not only do we have an urgent and scientifically clear sustainability challenge within the decade, but because of the pandemic, you know, we can see this rising gap between the have and have not accelerating in its rise. So we expect developing countries to regain about 0.9% of their global income gap, but we expect less developed countries, emerging economies, excluding China, to fall 5.5% below their pre-pandemic GDP. So the big level, the gap is widening, not narrowing when people talk about build back better or come through it, or these sorts of things. Public finances, to your point about, well, where's the money in investment going to come from? A strained. Globally on average, we have public finance of about 97% of GDP, debt to GDP ratios globally. So there's not much fiscal headroom to suddenly have more overseas development assistance or things like that. We've only seen some countries, you know, more constrained in those regards. So we're not only do we have a kind of a grim sustainability challenge, we have a widening social challenge, and these two things are playing into each other. We've heard from our panelists. So in the middle of all of that is not only the role of business, but as you mentioned, it's dynamic. Laurie says, what is the changing role of business? Not just about technology and innovation and finance, but what does it mean to be a corporation? What does it mean to have a private sector footprint to stimulate innovation jobs, small and medium-sized enterprises to create value because we don't have many other levers left? High inflation world, lots of fiscal interventions already from companies, a Bretton Woods circuitry, which even with the global pandemic, kind of difficult to react in a consistent way. So it's in that context, actually, that it's challenging and dynamic, but we are all full of ingenuity. And you can see the leading companies in the world actually thinking about how do you tackle climate, biodiversity, nature challenges, and rising inequality all at the same time, as three things which are interlinked. Not all companies are there, but certainly some of those leading ones are looking at this issue across what they call their value chains, all the way to small and medium-sized enterprises who are providing resources through to manufacturing and through to production. And that's why I think the Stockholm Plus 50 meeting in June coming up in 2020 is going to be super important because that's an environment and development of people and planet conversation where analysis of the sustainability of these kinds of global value chains has got to light the heart of how we drive forward. That's something that we will be doing at the WBCSD to give our friends from Stockholm Environment Institute for the Government of Sweden looking forward to that. But it is a really interesting conundrum and the good news is that on the progressive side, as George mentioned, because this is quite existential, that there is movement around some of those leading businesses who think thoughtfully about this, about what to do. There is a business commission for tackling inequality which has multiple commissioners involved from different walks of life, NGOs, international organizations, leading businesses, which the WBCSD hosts, which are trying to now unpack these issues because the net zero shift won't be one that is only in the context of a technical or a financial transformation on its own. It has to have that kind of equity and social piece at its heart. If it doesn't, it's not going to work. We have large companies who say, look, we could move faster on deploying more renewables on clean energy. The money is there from the international private sector investor community. We've seen that mobilization of a large amount of money potentially available. The thing that is stopping us is actually the challenge on the social issue. If you have a situation where a policy incentive is to differentiate fuel prices, for example, a green levy, unless that is linked to different people's level of income, it actually makes it worse for poorer people because having to pay more for a green levy rather than less. And in fact, richer people at the margin, it doesn't matter so much. So is there something about general taxation, which changes the burden of taxation in many ways, which many great experts have said for many times about taxing the bads rather than the goods like labor, which actually come into play. So here you have large corporations who are progressive on this who would be willing to engage in conversations around changing that tax burden to promote the green transition. So there's some very interesting things in play here which help with that whole shift in what a market-based economy needs to focus on is the right things to do. And it's not just putting the green transition in isolation because that social justice bit is absolutely at the core when we are facing very limited headroom and in public money available to help spend the way out of this. Thank you for that. You know, I mean, it's absolutely clear, isn't it, that if you start making these changes and changing these rules that actually affect people's pocketbooks, they're going to push back unless you do this in a way that they can see the benefit in it. And certainly there's plenty of people who've talked about that of, you know, if you take back a fossil fuel subsidy, you end up spending that on health and education or, you know, just putting it straight into people's bank accounts so they see, they don't see this as something that's going to hurt them and then they're on board. Another thing I wanted to bring up in this is this whole issue and I think it's just going to be absolutely crucial in all these areas of sort of transparency and accountability and all of this, right?  Are they really moving ahead? You know, what doesn't mean when you change these policies for people that are struggling to get by, you know, where's the real oversight on that? What do you think about that? How are we, is this whole system getting the kind of transparency, accountability and so on that it needs? Are we still far from that? I'd be curious, Isabella, how you see that. My mic is... Yeah, we can hear you now. You can hear me. Okay, fantastic. Okay, so, I mean, the transparency on the measures, I think it's incredibly important that we realize that we are at an urgent point in history now and we can't really make sure that every pen is spent is spent for a certain amount of reduction of CO2 emissions. So, we're kind of... We have to kind of propel ourselves out into something that is a little bit unknown, but it's not... If you look at the costs that have really occurred now during the pandemic, every calculation that has been done is far, far less in terms of what the cost of the green transition will be than the amount of money that has been spent during these two years of kind of trying to... Trying to diminish the effects of the pandemic. So, I don't think we should be so afraid and kind of exaggerate the costs. I was talking about green steel earlier and well, okay, so this green steel plant in northern Sweden, they are going to produce their steels, going to be more expensive, but they already have the customers and at the customer end, some car producers that have already ordered this for their cars. I mean, it's in the order of kind of electric backseat mirrors or something like that, extra plus for the end use the consumer. So, it's not that much and I'm really afraid, to be honest, when we're talking about rising inequality and social injustice, that we kind of project this on the green transition.  I mean, there's so many huge inequalities that have been built up, I mean, since colonial times in the developing world. So, I think we must be very aware that we're not kind of getting into the trap that we think that the green transition, what we need to do now, is that that is creating the inequalities? No. I mean, if we don't make the transition, those that are the poorest will be hit the hardest. We already know that and we know that the floodings and the forest fires and all of that, people that can't protect themselves from that are in the poorest countries, also in the rich countries, by the way, but we have social security systems and so on. So, I mean, your question about transparency, that's also kind of in my crystal ball, when I see kind of the discussion on climate skepticism and so on is kind of diminishing all these, I mean, most people, most people, not everyone, recognizes that climate change is manmade. We still have these counter science people out there, but another kind of discussion that is rising is now, do we afford the climate transition? Couldn't the money be better spent on vaccines, on schools for children, all of this? And of course, we must use money for vaccines and schools of children, but it's not either or. It's both. We need to do both. So, we shouldn't fall into that trap. And I see kind of lots of kind of commentators using that type of argument and we shouldn't fall into that trap. I think it's extremely dangerous. And last comment also on the crystal ball for 2022. I mean, we have midterm elections in the United States. And the Democrats and President Biden is risking to lose the majority in the Congress and that will really have a big impact on climate work internationally as we saw during President Trump. And we also know that there's a very, very slim majority for the president, the American president right now with one single senator that refused to accept the climate package of some 550 billion US dollars or more. And that's also why, how could a Democratic senator say no to that? Well, I mean, there's a lot of resistance among the voters in his state in West Virginia. So there's still a big pushback on the transition and therefore I return to what I said in the beginning that we need the good examples. We need to show you're not going to lose jobs. You're not going to lose money. It's a good investment to do the green transition for the businesses and companies and also for the workers. It's a fantastic point, frankly, this kind of reality sense check of on the spending for one thing that, you know, we've so rarely talk about the real costs of not doing this. And we've so rarely put the cost of doing it up against what we're spending on everything else out there. But it is easy. You know, we're kind of lacking this very, very good storytelling about the better lives that are coming the way of people once we get through this transition, which is not simple and easy. And I mean, I think that that's a question, Wenger. How do you sell that? You know, in Africa, you have a lot of people still saying, look, you know, we've got oil. We've got all these resources. What is crazy that we don't exploit these when we really need money to do, to improve development, to, you know, really bring Africa up to, to where it wants to be. You know, how do you sell that story? And how do you do it without the finance flowing that is what people really need to make this change? Well, you don't, Laurie. You need the finance and that's where the honesty and the acknowledgement of what it really takes to address this climate crisis because the truth of the matter is, for Africa, for most of the climate vulnerable countries, this just transition is about ensuring that they can create the sort of basic industrialization and development that cushions them. We know that is going to be crucial to getting there. I've had many times from the UN that I just transition simply means that we have to recognize that Africa is actually starting from a lower base in terms of the move towards a low carbon economy. We are not yet an industrialized economy, meaning that the changes that we actually have to make, we'll see more disruptions in society. And so we shouldn't make most of these vulnerable countries and vulnerable people pay for it. That would not be just, would it? We have to take the approach that that a pro development, pro poor way of doing this will have to allow the most number of people to exit from poverty and to have energy access and a good quality of life. What that therefore means is access, especially to electricity, is going to be a very crucial one. Access to universal cooking, clean cooking, inclusive mobility, and all of these will require significant amounts of finance. And that will be the single most indicator that we're taking this issue seriously. And until we do, it is, as Matt said, blah, blah, blah, because it is true that until we can put resources to making this transition happen, it's absolutely talk. Now, one thing I wanted to mention is that the transition for many developed countries our own in Kenya, for example, 80% of the energy in Kenya is renewable. We are largely one of the world's leading countries. However, the distribution of this energy is not just we are currently today. I'm sitting in a place so that I can access electricity because we are literally facing a blackout. We know that it's cheaper to have energy generation available from renewable sources. However, we must recognize that improving the base generation capacity will require additional investments in fossil fuels to allow us to increase renewables. And that's why a just transition for many of these countries requires us to look very closely at the pathways. We have not yet mapped out the pathways to that growth. And that needs to be done. That piece of analytical work is crucial before we can say no fossil fuels in Africa or you will go this way. That cannot be. We have to look at a very objective analysis of what it takes to get there. Yeah, the pathways are so different for different places. We're talking about Scandinavia versus Africa. It's really a different tale. But I think the unified theme in that is that finance needs to flow for good investments. And Africa is a good investment. It's a young population with massive resources and massive potential. And finding ways to actually move that money so that can be realized is to everybody's benefit, not least because of this last point and the currents that we mentioned about the possibility in Africa and plenty of other places of more violent conflict and more resource scarcity. And so many people living already close to the edge without very much room to fall when we have these harsher impacts hit food production and so on. So George, I'm curious from you. One of the things I really like to dig into in the last bit of time we have is who you see changing this picture. And we presented this picture of a lot of opportunities but really a lot of barriers to getting to them. Where is the pressure brought to bear? Do you think who can drive this? You know, is it activist? Is it financiers? Is it people that are doing the oversight of things now? Who really pushes this ahead? Let me give you an anecdote first for that answer, a short answer. We have a former minister with us also. I remember in 1988, the first environment minister in India was a young minister of state. And he was an environment minister. So when we went to meet him with all our enthusiasm on environment and things of that nature.  He said, when you can make your environment thing, vote catching, come and talk to me. And that was the. Yeah, George is breaking up a little bit there, but I think his his point is a crucial one is basically how do you do all this stuff and stay in office? Because we know that politicians, you know, it's part of what they do that they need to stay in office. And so they're always weighing that up. And we're talking about some long term changes that can have a little bit of pain in the in the short term to get to a much better future. So it's really challenging. Oh, George is coming back. Let's get him in here. George, you're back. Please go ahead, but take yourself off mute. Yeah, I'm sorry. It's been dropping just too often today. Go ahead. So I hope you heard that anecdote when the when the minister told me. When you can make your environment think vote catching come and talk to me. The truth of the matter is. Even after 25 years, the environment thing has not been vote catching in India. So unless within our developing world, and I know it's different, especially in the Scandinavian countries, you have a green party. So that's that's the difference. Unless we guys and. I remember what one Gary used to do because I was telling you that I used to walk the streets of Nairobi with her. We still have not been able to make that. Translate that into a vote. And as long as that happens. Okay, the political entities will not be really bothered. They will carry on paying. For example, we have 1000 and one schemes. To pay lip service to everything. Okay, there is no scheme under the sun that is not in India. To address any one of these issues. But the truth of the matter is from the political point of view. The second part of it. Is the corporate sector. There are I would stick my neck out and say. 5% of the enlightened large corporates. Who know that it is in their enlightened self interest. To bring in environmentally sound. And inclusive industrial processes. That having a relationship. With the environment around them. With the communities around them. Is useful for themselves in the long run. But unfortunately this is only 5%. Right. The rest of them will carry on with corporate social responsibility and all the kind of stuff. But when you really go to talk to them. You know the problem. Yeah, go ahead Isabel. I think you had a point. Yeah. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. No, I think that's a really good point. There from from you, George. I think it was from Paul Juncker. Who said that everyone knows what needs to be done. But no one knows how to be reelected afterwards. So that is kind of a good point. And I think. That's why we need these good examples. I keep coming back to that. Because in some countries, in fact, to be honest, in most of the world. There aren't any green parties. There's not enough voters out there who are willing to say, okay. We want to risk a kind of a little bit of uncertainty in the development of our country. Because we want to see the green transition. But it's therefore it's so important that we kind of manage to provide these good examples. And Sweden is in fact working together with India when I was a minister. And SEI is providing the secretariat for that cooperation as well. It's called Lead It. Where we work together with different countries to provide these good examples and support each other in making that transition. And after 12 years in politics, and I used to be journalist myself before. So I've worked both with kind of awareness racing from that side to kind of taking responsibility on policymaking on the other side. And I'm convinced at this point that what we absolutely need is laws and policies. And that is catalyzing action not only with the enlightened, self-interested businesses that already know that they will make money in the future of this. And they will not make money out of a completely destroyed planet. But that also brings along everyone. And that unleashes so much creativity and it also gives a kind of sense of fairness. Because if everyone needs to do this change, okay, then that's fine with the businesses. They say, okay, just tell us how much we must reduce the emissions and we will do it. But we don't tell them that. Some will kind of spearhead and maybe also complain because it will cost them more. And you're always kind of in this curse of those that are least willing that set the standard. And we are in an international world. So we also always hear that some businesses might move their activities to another country where there's more lax environmental legislation and so on. So what we need to do is kind of bring everyone along as fast as possible. And then we would see this kind of critical mass of industries within different sectors that we do the transition. And still I'm coming back to that all the time. It's 6% of global emissions. So and cement is 4% or 5%. And both of these kind of technological leaps needs to be done because they can't reduce emissions with renewable energy. Only they need to have new technologies. And this is already happening. And this needs to be kind of the next normal for these industries. But that will only happen with legislation and support. Also, of course, we need support. And I have to say also to Juan Jira that the support for developing countries is crucial. Sweden has all the time been a very big supporter for the Green Climate Fund and at least developed countries fund and et cetera, et cetera. And I think there's so many advantages in kind of building a social just society on renewable energy, on sustainable agriculture production and all of that and doing that from the start and not kind of repeating the mistakes of the industrialized world. Thanks, Isabella. Just a quick reminder to everyone watching, we're going to go to questions in just a few minutes here. Still time to put some in. There's lots of good ones coming in. I think the point you're making is a really good one, basically, that you need these examples. You need this storytelling to paint this believable picture of a future world that can be better for everyone. But you need a bit of regulation to be driving that forward and making that happen. Because the only other alternative to winning those votes is really bad climate impacts where people will start voting because things are really terrible. And that's a bit late to be getting the will behind it when that's happening everywhere, though it's fast coming. Juan Jero, what do you say to all this? How do we do this? Well, I agree with Isabella. I think legislation and policy is important. I think taking more interest in the intersection between environment and politics, we all remember so often they're seen as separate, but there's such an important nexus there and who we elect, who we encourage to go into political office and ensuring that we engage. We say that all the time here in Kenya and in Africa that we cannot complain when we get the leaders that we have elected or that we have allowed others to elect for us. So I think it's really important, those two points that she mentioned. I also think it's crucially important to remember that a lot of people in these places are concerned about everyday survival issues. And so sometimes politics seems like a real side event and it's often left alone and to the detriment of others. I also wanted to say, like you said, Laurie, that we ignore the environment and suddenly vote in the ways that we are. And we're starting to see a little bit of a shift in that, but we do that at our own peril. That's why I really liked Philip's Dr. Osano's paper on conflict. I remember 18 years ago, Laurie, when Wangari Mathai won the Nobel Peace Prize. There were so many people who questioned what the environment had to do with peace. A lot of people said there is no way that this prize should have been given to an environmentalist. And she spent the rest of her life, which was about seven years from then, explaining and unpacking this crucial nexus between environment and peace. And I think it was so well put by Dr. Osano in that piece on conflict. And we live in Kenya right now, where 2.4 million people in the North are starving because of a tremendous drought. We had the issue in the Aswan with scorpions. We had the drought here. We're having locus on and on and on. It's difficult for politicians to ignore this. And we are pushing, as Isabella you've said, for a lot, especially activists in these parts of the world, for permanent protections in areas where we can help it, so that we can remove those areas from even the political debate. So getting the politics and the politicians and drumming it up constantly is going to be a really important part. But what's really important, and it speaks a little bit to the issue and all these seven currents are so interconnected because the issue of environmental defenders comes in very closely because the more we start to highlight how important the environment nature is, the more important protecting green spaces and forests will be. And the more important they are, the more at risk our environmental defenders will be. So it's so important that we fund them, we defend them, we support them, we stand in solidarity with them, we show up and support them, and those of us in the legal profession, we provide support for them. So how we surround our environmental defenders and not watch them through our television screens is going to be a really important part of protecting them. So the solidarity agenda across the board, really important as we move forward. Fantastic. I think we should move to these questions. There are so many good ones in here and some really thought-provoking ones, and I'm going to start with one of those. To make sure that we don't miss it. Someone asking, we've had this big discussion about fairness and about driving this thing forward in a way that works for everyone and is genuinely fair. They're asking, what are the panelist's views of including degrowth in developed countries as part of the just transition conversation rather than just talking about getting developing countries up to speed? It's easy to spend a lot of your time looking at the developing world, and certainly there's a lot that needs to be done there, but who's producing all the emissions and who's consuming too much? That's a lot of us in the West. What do you think, Isabella? I mean, I think we need to look at the concept of growth because I mean, I'm a green politician, and we are quite suspicious of the whole concept of growth. And I think what we need to see is that the whole world needs to develop rather than growth. Growth can be the building of hospitals, of schools, of roads that everyone needs, and public transportation, all of that is growth. But then we have unsustainable growth, and we have a lot of unsustainable growth in developed countries that I see as a way of kind of... We're almost as rich, so rich we don't know what to do with our money and it's kind of just kind of frantic consumption of stuff, which is not needed or not making anyone any happier. But I don't know how to address that other than with kind of really in-depth discussions on what is a good society? What do we want from our lives? Do we just want more and more stuff?  Is that the one who wins? I mean, to introduce other values in young people's kind of projections of their future, of what they want to accomplish, and I can see that already in the Fridays for Future Generation with Greta Thunberg and so on. And I think we need a mind shift really on what is the purpose of our societies. And of course, there's a huge difference between a poor country and a very, very rich country, such as mine, in this discussion. And so degrowth, yes, for our countries, but also what kind of growth do we want? I mean, we could very well have a lot of growth in community spaces and kind of common shared resources that we're not really developing right now, but we could do in the future. So it's a complicated, but it's a good question. Juanjero, what do you want to see from the north? What would not Greta Vanessa Nicate say about this? Well, Vanessa would have a lot to say about this, but overall I think one of the things that we all agree, Vanessa included, is that we have to remember that we are not disconnected from each other. The interconnectedness of all of this is so important. The consumption in the north is deeply connected to exploitation in the developing countries. The beef industry in the United States depends heavily on deforestation of the Amazon. You have the tech industry in countries in Europe, depends on mining in the Congo. And of course, you have the cosmetic industry around the world that depends on palm oil plantations in Indonesia. There is a very clear connection between these countries that should actually stop us in our tracks and remember that we are all connected. In South Africa, there is a concept of Ubuntu. I am because you are. There is absolutely no reason why in this day and age, we're still talking about financing climate when in fact we know we are so connected and that when we ignore the injustice that is going on in the north and the south, we actually are hurting ourselves. It is in our best interest, those of you in the north, to care about what's going on in the other parts of the world. Because if you don't, you put yourself at risk. Ask the COVID pandemic. That has been the biggest reminder that we cannot ignore what's going on in one part of the world and expect that it will shield us because we have all the money in the world. It will not. If we had been good global citizens, we would have been making the COVID pandemic a global effort and we would by now not be talking and learning the Greek alphabet. I don't know about you, but I'm tired. I'm tired of the Greek alphabet. Let's move on to something else. The interconnectedness of all of us, it's not one side and the other and nobody wants your sympathy in the global south. We want your solidarity. This is a crucial, crucial time in the history of our planet and in the survival of our species. We can't continue working like this as if we are in separate little boxes like I see in my Zoom box. Let's just get over it and get on with the real work of supporting each other. That's fantastic, Lanjera. George, briefly, what do you want from the north? What do you want to see? In fact, for me, I don't look up to the north on this one.  There is a north within my own country. And Lanjera, you use the example of the pandemic.  When the second wave came, the poor were heavily affected first and the government had to release all these caged, good-looking five-star private hospitals in such a way that the poor people could come in. The health system broke down. So even the rich had no place to go. My wife was in hospital. She's a doctor. With all the influence we had, it was so difficult for her to get a bed after being a doctor and being in the upper urban middle class. People faced reality. So in our context, it's not the north versus the south. We guys in our own country, the top 10, 15 percent who are consuming much more than the industrialized world, better start smelling the coffee. Okay, so that's a good point. It's the rich everywhere, isn't it? Not just in certain countries. I'm going to try to get one last question in here. We have someone asking, how do you think the tensions between the big political powers in the world will affect the sustainability agenda? Anybody have any views on that? Isabel? I can just start off. I mean, we're seeing a huge polarization right now between, let's say, democratic humanistic values and very, very right wing, kind of alt-right populistic movement. We see it not least in the United States, but also in the UK and in Europe and in many parts of the world. And I think this is kind of, this is a fight that we will have to take. It's very, very alarming because it's kind of affecting people's minds in how they see the reality and that they see, for instance, scientists, women, journalists, leftist politicians as enemies and really kind of the enemy. I mean, we saw what happened in the American Congress just a year ago. So I think this is something to be very aware of and I think we all need to walk the extra mile to try and not contribute to that polarization and try in our everyday life and in different ways to kind of reach out, maybe to your neighbor, your colleague, your relative and try to not contribute to this polarization where people get as each other's enemies because there's interest behind this and it's very interesting to see the connection between misogyny, anti-climate environmental activists and democracy, freedom of speech. All of this is kind of linked together and in the end, the end goal seems to be to have women back in the kitchen just not having access to sexual reproductive health and rights and kind of abolishing all environmental policies. So this is kind of in the one corner and the other corner, I think, all of us are in and we need to be aware of those forces that are getting, unfortunately, stronger. Yeah, these big fights, they all come together, don't they? And I think that's actually one really good thing that's been recognized increasingly over the last couple of years is that you really can't fight inequality and some of these problems without looking at climate change and vice versa and trying to bring these movements together, which I know the youth protest movements and some others have really worked on over the pandemic period. That's a positive point, I think. Wenger or George? Do you have any views on this? George, go ahead. I think it is a pendulum swing. If you look at it globally, if I step back two steps and just look at this, in the 90s, there was the big conversation on globalization and we have to hug and kiss each other. And that over the last decade, with right wing, I mean tending towards right wing governments coming across the world have started being much more protectionistic. So each one of the governments is saying, I have to look after my people because that's the only way I can win my elections. So I think it is a pendulum swing and people assume that that tipping point is going to come very soon because it's been there for a decade. I would stretch it maybe close to a decade and a half. Last 15 years, it's been moving. The hardness has already come into being very, very protectionistic. And you can see that in the trade conversations. You can see that in the environmental negotiations in all the global kinds of negotiations. So I think people with students start realizing, as Vanjira had mentioned, see, we are a global community. We just cannot afford to not start respecting each other. We just cannot afford to do it. So I think the pendulum will swing back. It's just a question of time. I see it in the next two or three years. Thank you, George. Vanjira, just we've got a couple minutes left. What do you get the final word? Well, great. The final word, but certainly for me, the final word is, as I've said, the truth of the matter is, we have a lot of work to do together. We have to remember that in the midst of this pandemic, in the midst of the climate crisis, the one thing we have is really each other. And that we have got to build an environment of trust. One of the things that happened in COP26 is, even though we had some small gains in different directions, there was a huge casualty on this thing we call trust. We've got to build that trust. Otherwise, we have nothing else to build, all of that we've been talking about.  And we have to build that together. We've got to believe in our capacity to address it. If we don't, then we fail. Not only ourselves, certainly our children. And how do we look them in the face and say that we did the best we could? We just didn't. So I hope we'll do better. Thank you, Laurie. Thank you. That, I mean, that's fantastic. And it sounds to me like if there's one word to sum up what we need to do with all these things, it's yours, ubuntu. We need everybody to be thinking about each other and really pulling together on this and having solidarity because otherwise it's just too much work to do this when we're all fighting each other. But if we're heading in the same direction and aware that what happens to one happens to everyone, then maybe we have a chance to make this happen. Thank you so much for your time. I'm going to hand over to Mans to finish up here. And if you'll look up on the screen as well, there's some contact details. If anyone who's listening wants to find out more about this or get in touch, those are there. But thank you for absolutely wonderful panelists and a great conversation. Over to you, Matt. Thank you. And right back to you, Laurie. Thank you so much for your dynamic facilitation. Thank you to the panelists. Juan Jira, George, Isabella and Dominic. It's been a really great conversation. I'm particularly happy to see this, like that we're able to look at the world as it is and not only as it should be. And actually that this was the signature of what we wanted to do with our horizon scanning was to get that focus on how it really looks, what do we have to work with right now, but then getting into, of course, where we need to go and how we can change things for the better. And I think the panel perfectly embodied this aspiration of straddling the fence between the world as it is and the world as it needs to be. So I'm really happy about that. And I think we are facing difficult time right now in the world with the nationalism and the anti-liberal movements and anti-multilateral sentiments around the world, conflicts and tension between different social groups amplified by social media in different ways, which makes movements and social tensions rise extremely suddenly and quickly and small things can explode in a new kind of speed, at a new speed. But I agree with, I really appreciated the last comments from our three remaining panelists and George, you said that things are indeed hopefully swinging back in a couple of years. I believe in that. I think we are already in that backswing to some degree. We will need to follow this very closely. So hope to come back with more analysis and discussions around this in the coming year. So also a huge thank you to Rob for your excellent presentation and Anika who's mentioned here on the slide, Anika Flensper who's been leading this project for us this year. And a very big thank you finally to our audience. Thank you for listening. And as said on the slide, we're very interested in your feedback. Please send it through and look forward to seeing you again. Thank you. Bye bye.