Okay, thank you for joining. We're gonna just give it an extra minute and then we will begin. Okay, let's kick off. So welcome everyone to this online report launch for the latest Climate Change Committee report that was published earlier this month, investment for a well-adapted UK. My name is Ben Koldekot. I'm a member of the Adaptation Committee of the CCC and we'll be chairing today's event. The CCC prepared the report for a variety of reasons. So firstly, improve climate resilience requires significant investment. Investment will be needed to create new assets to protect the UK against climate impacts. Secondly, existing investment flows will need to be delivered in a way that is resilient to future climate conditions. Thirdly, we'll need investment from both the public and private sectors. How can we mobilize both at sufficient scale and pace? What can policymakers and regulators do to unlock that capital? Those are questions we examine in the report. And while the financial community has been very successfully, well, maybe not successfully yet, but has been very much focused on net zero, adaptation has been less well understood and how can we change that? So as you'll hear from colleagues, the report highlights some of the priorities for adaptation, particularly in the UK, obviously. Our pinpoints, the barriers to capital flowing where it needs to and sets out a vision for how we can solve some of these issues and questions. Now, the event today, we've structured it in the following way. So we're gonna have a short presentation on the key findings of the report from a colleague, B. Natsala from the CCC. She leads the people and business team at the CCC and her team conducts analysis and provides advice to government on the role of society in progressing towards net zero and a climate resilient future. One footnote, and this is a footnote that's about how we do analysis in the CCC. So B's team covers both net zero and adaptation and resilience. And there's been a big effort to try and integrate the analytical resources across the CCC to ensure joint working between mitigation and adaptation. After B gives that presentation, we're gonna have a few responses from panelists. So we're first gonna hear from Emma Howard Boyd, who is chair of the Green Finance Institute. Many of you will know Emma from a variety of positions and roles. She was chair of the environment agency until last year and she's currently chair of the Green Finance Institute. She's also chair of the advisory board for the Center for Greening Finance and Investment and as a UN Global Ambassador for Race to Zero and Race to Resilience. So Emma will be our first respondent. We'll then hear from Caroline Hass from NatWest Markets, where she's head of climate and ESG capital markets. Our next respondent after Caroline is Faith Ward, who's chief responsible investment officer at Brunel Pension Partnership. She's also chair of the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change, a major investor coalition in Europe. And then we'll hear from a colleague of mine on the Climate Change Committee, on the Adaptation Committee, Twenia Szyminski. And Twenia is also chair of the Munich Climate Insurance Initiative. She's a managing director for climate and sustainability at Marshall-Kellen and is a professor in practice at the Granton Research Institute at the LSE. So after we've heard from those very distinguished respondents, we'll have a panel discussion and the Q&A and aim to finish at 11.30. We also have other experts from the CCC analytical team. So we have Brendan Freeman, who is a senior analyst of the natural environment, who's also on the line. And if there are questions that might be relevant for the authorship team of the report, then Brendan and others might come in. Before I hand over to B, so in advance of the Q&A, we're gonna be using Slido for Q&A. Many of you will have used Slido before. So there is in the chat details of how you can log into Slido. You can start posting your questions straight away, if you would like, or as you get inspired by the contributions from our different respondents and indeed during the Q&A. You can upvote questions as well to help make sure they get asked and hopefully answered. So without further ado, over to you, B. Thank you for kicking us off. Thanks, Ben, and good morning, everyone. Thanks so much for joining us this morning. So I'm gonna take you through at a high level for about 20 minutes, the key messages that came out from our report on investment for a well-adapted UK. And just wanna thank the Adaptation Committee, including Ben and Svenja, who were on the line this morning and the team who led on this report, including Brendan Freeman, Richard Miller and David Stiles. Next slide. So I'm gonna take you through to start with what we see as the key investment needs for a well-adapted UK, why we need to be putting investment towards this priority at this point. And then secondly, the key barriers that we mapped to those investment flows. Thirdly, some instruments that can help facilitate the flow of investment that's needed. And then finally, the key recommendations that came out from our report. Before I go on to that, just a quick note on who the Climate Change Committee are through an independent statutory body that was established under the Climate Change Act in 2008. And our purpose is to advise the UK and above governments on their emissions targets. And we've produced reports for parliaments on the progress the government makes towards reducing both greenhouse gas emissions, but also adapting to the impacts of climate change. So it's within that second piece, is it adapting to impacts of climate change that we chose to focus on adaptation for investment in this report. Great. Why do we need to invest in adaptation in the UK? Next slide. So as you can see on the graph on the right, even if we managed to sort of rapidly start to reduce emissions from now as the UK has committed to, if all current global commitments are followed, if you look at that green line, we can expect the annual UK temperature in the coming decades to continue to increase. So climate change to a point is already locked in. So what does this mean? It means that in the UK in terms of direct impacts, we can expect to see an increase in the severity and frequency of UK heat waves. We can expect to see a change in UK rainfall patterns and also arise in sea levels around the UK coast in the next century. There's not just these direct impacts to think about though, there's a variety of impacts on our wider society, economy, natural ecosystems, agricultural environments and urban areas, which could have ripple effects across the economy. And finally, we live in increasingly interconnected worlds. So the impacts of climate change globally could have a significant impact on the UK due to things such as our supply chains. Next slide. So what does this really mean in terms of costs to the UK? So it's pretty hard to estimate and there's a lot of uncertainty within it, but it's clear that the costs will be significant. So some estimates place it at between one to 4% of UK GDP by 2050 in terms of cost to the UK economy. But it's worth noting that this could be a lot higher given the significant uncertainty around climate tipping points, which would lead to a lot higher costs. In our climate change risk assessment a few years ago, we looked at a specific subset of risks that could be quantified and found that the cost was at least five to 10 billion per year by 2050, if we assume a course where we only rise by two degrees centigrade of our pre-industrial levels by 2100. So despite the uncertainty, the message is clear, the costs in our current status are going to be high. And when we think about it from a UK financial system perspective, it's also pretty concerning. So the Bank of England did some analysis that showed that if we take no further action to adapt the UK to these impacts of climate change, climate risks will be a persistent drag on bank and insurance probability and up to 10 to 15% at our current no-action status. Some positive news though in that if we do take action, it's clear that the costs can be a lot lower. Which brings me on to the next side, which encouragingly shows that for a lot of the key adaptation actions that we need to take, such as strengthening early warning systems for heat waves and other climate change risks, nature restoration, making new infrastructure more resilient and investing in natural and technological flood and water management. The benefits are seen to outweigh the costs by sometimes up to a 10 to one ratio. So you can see in this diagram here, there's quite a range in terms of evidence, but it's clear that a lot of the actions, it would make sense from a societal perspective to be invested in. Next slide. Great, so what does this mean in terms of investment? We want these adaptation actions to take place. They obviously need money to support them. And as Ben said out at the start, there's broadly three categories of the kinds of investment being needed. So in one area, there's some actions that need significant additional investment. So in particular, where we need new assets or services whose primary purpose is to build resilience to weather and climatic conditions. So an example of this would be investing in flood defenses, which are the sole primary aim of reducing risks of flooding which can be exacerbated by climate change. The second category is climate proofing, existing investment flows. So for example, planned investments and additional offshore wind capacity, so these investments are already planned, but they could have greater climate resilience benefits if they're delivered in a range of locations, making the overall system less vulnerable to potential future wind droughts. In many cases, there may be some additional costs associated with climate proofing, these non-adaptation investment flows, but this can vary across asset type and climate hazard. And then finally, there's some key adaptation actions that don't actually require upfront investment. So for example, changes in how occupants manage their houses during heat waves through appropriate opening and shutting windows during a blinds can influence overheating risks. Great. So to help really focus and make this concrete in our report, we decided to focus on five key focus areas that span different investment challenges. So I'll just briefly speak you through each of those now. So the first is nature-based solutions to help manage flood risk. So this includes actions to restore, protect and enhance the ability of natural ecosystems to provide critical services. So examples could be planting trees and increased vegetation along river banks to bolster the soils available to stay intact or along the coast it could include improving the condition of coastal habitats to enable them to better insulate and act as a barrier against coastal surge. And a key thing to note about nature-based solutions is they can often come with a wider range of co-benefits, whether that's for biodiversity or also helping to achieve some of our net zero goals. The second adaptation action that we looked at in detail in this report is sustainable urban drainage systems, sometimes referred to as SUDS. So these are water management practices designed to manage rainwater locally and they're usually implemented within urban areas as a sequence of techniques such as permeable paving or soakways and they work together to manage surface water. Our investment in SUDS is required for new developments in flood risk areas and is often funded by developers or local authorities. The third focus area was retrofitting homes to reduce, sorry, to reduce overheating risk. So homes across the UK will need to be retrofitted with passive or active cooling measures to reduce internal temperatures during periods of high temperatures such as what we experienced in the summer last year. And this varies in terms of what it looks like a lot by building type and location. Fourth, we looked at climate-proofing infrastructure. So there are increasing risks to infrastructure from high temperatures, flooding, drought, coastal erosion and potentially wildfire in the coming decades. So there's sort of two parts to this. The first is that existing energy networks, roads and rail infrastructure need additional spending to make sure they can continue to operate effectively under these conditions. And then investments that we're hoping to see to upgrade new technologies to support net zero delivery should also, while they're being upgraded, integrate and be climate-proof themselves. And then finally, drought resilience in the public water system. So this will probably be fresh on people's minds from last summer, but following a trend towards hotter and drier summers in the UK, there's a need to invest to manage the increasing risks of future water shortages due to climate change. So those are the five areas that we'll be focusing on in this report. And so we had to go at estimating for each of these areas broadly what the investment needs would be. This is quite challenging because without a clear vision for what a well-adapted UK would look like from the government, it's hard to know what the goalposts are. So for example, the investment level needed to ensure that the water system is resilient to say a one in 200-year drought will be very different to the level of investment needed to ensure that it was resilient to a one in 500-year drought. So some uncertainty with these ranges, but I hope we still have an indicative figure. Other estimates have put the overall investment need per year at around 10 billion pounds. And just to put this in context, that's around roughly a fifth of the additional investment that we see needed for the net zero transition. So a significant but achievable amount of investment. Next slide. Great, so that sets out the sort of broads where we need to get to why this is so important. So the next question really is why isn't this already happening given there's clear benefits to society, the benefits outweigh the costs and as high costs of no action as well. So we looked into this in some detail in this report and identified four broad barriers to investment that can help explain why to date. We're not seeing the levels and the adaptation investment we might expect given the benefits that they bring. So the first is market and financial barriers. So there's often low or no revenues from climate risk reduction. And while there's a high economic return, there's a low financial internal rate of return. So it's hard for those investing in these actions to really capture the benefits. Often adaptation actions have an element of things sort of public goods such as flood defences. So it's hard as well to make sure that investment happens through private markets. And finally, benefits are often far in the future and due to discounting, they're therefore less attractive. Second key barriers, information barriers. So there's insufficient information often on the climate risks and how exactly they will materialize and information gaps on the adaptation actions, effectiveness and benefits across different options, how they vary over space and time, et cetera. And at times there can be limited understanding in the investment community of adaptation. The third barrier is bankability. So projects are often pretty complex both in terms of time and resources. There can be a lack of experience and skills to deliver the adaptation projects and financing and the large number of actors in terms of beneficiaries, different organizations can add to the complication. Fourthly, policy and regulatory barriers. So at times as regulation that provides insufficient incentives or sometimes disincentives to investing in adaptation, they can be limited to join up on cooperation within and across sectors and policy uncertainty can make it hard for long-term investments and planning. And then finally, behavioral barriers. So there can be a low willingness to pay for adaptation sometimes based on a belief that it's purely the government's role to ensure the UK is adapted and a general perceived lack of urgency to adapt possibly linked to how hard it is to comprehend slow onset or local ability risks. So those could all sound quite high-level and theoretical but we've mapped these against and gone into some detail for each of the adaptation actions that I spoke through earlier. I won't go through these all in detail though I'd encourage you to dive into the report if any of particular interests. But just as a couple of examples. So for nature-based solutions to help manage flood risk that's the first column on the left, you can see there's a particularly high barrier in terms of market and financial barriers and information barriers. So there's often a lack of information on the costs and effectiveness of nature-based solutions, a lack of accessible finance and also inappropriate regulation and legislation that can mean that the multiple benefits the nature-based solutions can deliver such as to ecosystems, biodiversity and net zero aren't fully captured or monetized. And then sort of on the other end if we look at the public water system, you can see slightly more positive picture there in terms of the RAG ratings. So though barriers do remain for water there has been some positive developments. So for example, there's established planning processes which incorporate climate change and approaches to accelerate infrastructure investment and raise awareness of investments of water efficiency in homes. So a mixed picture of broadly clearly quite a lot of barriers that we still need to address. Okay, great. So which then leads us to the question what instruments can we use to make sure that investment does flow into these adaptation actions and hopefully instruments that can help address some of those barriers we just spoke through. So many adaptations provide widely distributed and often difficult to quantify benefits such as investment in flood defenses to protect key towns and cities and investment in the provision of ecosystem services. So this points to the need for higher levels of public investment to support those areas of climate resilience, even where it's combined with private sources. So when we think about revenue streams we divide them into three but the sort of primary one we look at is public investment. But as I mentioned, it won't be sufficient on its own to deliver adaptation and there's a key role for private investment to lead the way in certain areas. So private enterprise will need to invest in aspects of resilience where there are key beneficiaries through the financial markets or internal investment. And depending on the sector the business may be able to pass on some of the costs of the adaptation investment through to their customers. We're seeing private enterprises increasingly measuring climate risk and developing plans helps impart by TCFD, ISSB and other such initiatives but it's not yet clear if this is driving any increase in levels of private investment into climate adaptation. And then finally, the third revenue stream we can consider is from private households themselves. So some adaptation investment will come directly from household expenditure such as investment to retrofit homes to reduce overheating risk. And this won't then have associated revenues. So we've mapped these potential revenue sources against those key adaptation action areas that I mentioned at the start. And you can see for different ones there's different ways of directing funding flows. So for example, for nature-based solutions we see a key role for public funding through things such as the environmental land management scheme but also the potential for private revenue flows to really step in whether that's through impact investment, ecosystem credit or payments for ecosystem services. And we think like throughout this a really key takeaway is the need to accurate and agreed methods for monetizing the benefits of adaptation actions. So often the benefits from adaptation actions are complex and will require new innovative methodologies that are simple to use but remain scientifically robust. So we need to see consensus building through the establishment of standards for measuring and monetizing adaptation benefits with government playing an important role here. And you can see that would be particularly important for things such as say ecosystem credits where it can be quite hard to capture the tree benefits. And then secondly, the other thing we think that could really help with this are demonstrator projects. So adaptation projects using innovative funding and financing approaches can serve as templates for others to copy and help provide confidence that successful and profitable projects can be delivered in reality. And there's a role for government there along with its agencies to support these innovative funding demonstrators and document and publicize the learnings from them. So just an example of a potential demonstrator project. So a few years ago, the community around the river wire recognized that there was a real investment needs for floods mitigation. So over four years, they'd experienced three floods that were one in 50 year floods. So a really sort of high flood risk there. And this comes with quite a cost. So in general, the cost of a one in 50 year flood to insurers is a little under two million pounds. So there was a clear investment need there to invest in flood mitigation measures. And this was successfully achieved through a combination of approaches and most critically through sort of public-private partnerships. So there was a combination of grant funding up front and then impact investment. And something that really helped secure and deliver the impact investment was being able to really capture the benefits in a monetized form to reduced flooding as well as using ecosystem benefits and carbon credits as well. Great, next slide please. Great, so finally, what does this mean for what we need to see going forward in terms of ensuring that we really use some of these financing mechanisms, direct them towards the right adaptation actions and make sure different stakeholders and actors in this space can play their role. So we've got six broad recommendations that have come out from the report. So the first is the government needs to clarify adaptation goals and roles for investment. So the next national adaptation program should set out a really clear vision for a well-adapted UK with specific targets. So it's clear what we're aiming for and therefore what level of investment is really needed. And the updated green finance strategy which we're expecting in the coming months should clarify where adaptation will be publicly or privately funded. Secondly, we want to see markets created that really value adaptation outcomes. Government can play a role here in helping create markets for this including through carbon market integrity schemes and the environmental land management scheme. And industry regulators and implementing agencies should have resilient standards aligned to national objectives to help deliver this through the piece. Thirdly, we need to see leadership from the public sector. So we'd like to see the Office for Budget Responsibility to do a full review of the impacts of climate change on the UK macro economy and public finances to really build the evidence in that space. And for government and implementing agencies to ensure a growing fraction of their funds support those pioneering projects or demonstrators that I just spoke through. Great. Fourthly, we think that the corporate disclosure regimes that exist and are doing a good job and are really positive could be further strengthened. So we'd like to see the sustainability disclosure regime to help improve an understanding of adaptation investment needs and for the government to build on the good work of the transition plan task force to define standards for high quality adaptation plans. We'd like to see financial regulators empowered to address risks. So for example, the Bank of England could examine how capital requirements for banks should be adjusted based on climate risks and financial regulators themselves should provide directional guidance financial institutions to measure physical climate risk and their contribution to climate adaptation outcomes and cross portfolios. And then finally, we see a really critical role for public financial institutions, such as the UKIB, the BBB, the BII and the UKEF. We think they could create adaptation finance strategies to set out how they'll independently and collectively ensure that no viable adaptation project fails due to a lack of finance. That was a high level overview. But if you're interested to sort of dig into the detail of our analysis, I'd really encourage you to go to the Climate Change Committee website where our full report can be found alongside the supporting research that's fed into that report. Great, thanks so much and I'll hand back to Ben. Great, thanks so much, Bea. Fantastic presentation. I canter through all the issues, the arguments and the key recommendations. So Emma, you've very kindly agreed to be our first respondent. Thank you for joining us over to you. Thank you, thank you, Ben, and thank you, Bea, for that fantastic presentation. It's great to join you all today and to hear a little bit more about the excellent report with its strong call to raise the level of ambition on financing climate change adaptation in the UK. I was particularly pleased to hear, firstly, Ben, in your introductory comments about the integration of the work at the Committee on Climate Change, making sure that work on adaptation and net zero is very closely aligned and working together. And Bea, for you to highlight the example of the river wire and how that particular pilot project has actually led to investment. That is something that the Environment Agency, DEFRA, the Esme Fairbent Foundation and Treados Bank were involved with, as well as other organizations that were involved in and now will start playing the revenues and is a great example of how a pilot will hopefully move into scaling up and other examples of investment. Energy security and more recently, food security have been the focus of our political attention dominating the headlines. And I would like to see climate security given the same emphasis, not just here in the UK, but globally. We are experiencing a century of climate change. Already around the world, there's almost a daily roll call of climate related weather events. And now is the time for the UK to demonstrate leadership on climate security, building on its strength of science, innovation, engineering and finance sectors, particularly in insurance markets. As Baroness Brown has clearly stated when the report was published, adaptation, preparing for climate hazards in the UK remains chronically underfunded and overlooked and this must change. In common with net zero, a major program of investment is required to meet the UK's adaptation needs. But unlike net zero, the government has not defined its priorities and this lack of clarity is preventing progress on appraising the country's investment needs and closing the adaptation gap. So be clear, this risks undermining on net zero investments. If we do not properly consider rising floods and extreme heat, net zero infrastructure could become prematurely obsolete, literally washing away in a flood or melting in a heat wave. I'd like to see a profound shift in the resilience narrative by which resilience becomes a core component of innovative strategic decision making. A rigorous integration of these risks should allow the unlocking of the upside, enabling countries and investors to become more competitive, attractive and strategic instead of being penalized for acknowledging their exposure. And your report is extremely helpful in this regard. We need to stop seeing innovation and resilience as risky and therefore more difficult, expensive to attract and expensive to attract finance and start seeing not innovating and building resilience as risky, broadening the scope of risks and the timescale over which they are considered. And there are a number of initiatives we've talked about, the pilot project will come up in a river wire, but also things like the Coalition for Climate Resilient Investments physical climate risk assessment methodology which was published last autumn to address the massive resilience gap in financing. And again, this tool book, this guide, this practitioner's guide supplies the practical tools to identify and assess the resilience of infrastructure assets. So as far as your key recommendations are concerned, I agree with you that the forthcoming third national adaptation plan, NAP3 and the forthcoming green finance strategy which is going to come out in the next few months we understand are fantastic opportunities to highlight the importance of adaptation finance. I'm really keen in the past, I've called for a greater focus on standards and indeed some sort of review around the resilience standards and the level of adaptation and resilience, what a good adapted UK looks like. So again, really like the calls that you have put into your report for an assessment of this sort of type. And again, just recognising that we need to look at different forms of adaptation and resilience alongside different types of finance and really get into the nitty gritty of what this means. Often when government has launched a task force and we've seen it with the green finance task force, we've got it now with transition plans, it really over a short period of times puts a great deal of focus on driving improvements. And I'm wondering whether this is something that could be set out as part of the next green finance strategy to make sure that we're bringing not just financiers but academics and engineers into really understanding what is needed to make sure that we're funding, investing in climate resilience in the way that we need to. Thank you very much. Thanks so much, Emma. And also for emphasising the importance and role particularly of the forthcoming green finance strategy as well, which I agree is a big opportunity. Caroline, thank you also for being a respondent and thank you for going next over to you. Great. Thank you very much. Obviously there was a fair call out around investment and the markets and the understanding of the markets around adaptation. Now, I think one kind of has to take a little bit of a step back. And it's probably the fact that there has been a tremendous amount of focus on transition risk which obviously was called out throughout the system. It was also very much where some of the regulators focused on initially. And so as a result, it kind of ended up kind of driving people's attention very quickly to transition versus looking at the more physical risks associated with climate change. And I think it's interesting because the physical climate change is actually really physical. You can see it, it's visual, it's in front of us. But in many ways it's only now starting to really hit home. And I think the example of the wire and how many floods were happening whereas one assumed this was a 50-year event. Now, obviously insurance companies have been dealing with different types of physical event risk for a long time. But that has not really fed through the rest of the financial ecosystem. And I think even now it was one thing that was very much called out by the PRA when we did all the best work and we actually looked at the bank's balance sheets and the risks associated with physical risk that in many ways it wasn't actually done sufficiently. So what you're seeing is actually the banks also being pushed back now to revisit what their portfolios are. Inherently, there are challenges with that and some of that is in the reporting that we actually don't have geobased reporting for our companies and the activity. So for us to actually look at the scenario analysis of what that impact could be makes it actually quite challenging. And so these are some of the, I would say probably really granular barriers that we are faced with is actually trying to get down into that details as we do when we start to look at transition and emissions risk. But at the same time, I think actually we can see it already coming through. The Green Bond frameworks already have that ability to include physical risk and the investments into that area. Thames Water already has done that and very much looked at kind of their treated volumes of wastewater, the reduced market based and then linked it back. And I think this is another one. They link it back to the more transition risk and the carbon numbers. And so I think that is actually a real sort of co-benefit one can think about as you start to think about what is the narrative that links back to what people can already address and are associated with to how do we actually gain a greater focus and awareness around the physical risks associated with climate change. I think it's also interesting and it was definitely beneficial that the UK Green Gilt already also include adaptation in the framework. And I think it's interesting to note of the allocated funds of the Green Bond issuance between 21 and 22 which was a total of about 8.8 billion. 1.1 billion was actually allocated to the environment agency's flood program which equated to about 13% of the allocation. And in their report, they also called out that it was actually improved flood protection for over about 314,000 homes which already exceeded the target of 300,000. Now, these are still few and far between but I think it is exactly these examples that we need to build upon and really increase the understanding and awareness of that. While I think as much as we can linking it back to that slightly more well-trodden path so that one starts to connect the two impacts and I think that will very much lead. Now, I think a classic example and this was called out in the report as well is looking at public sector and how they actually incorporate this. And for example, in the Holland there is an agency that ultimately just looks at that which is Netlon's Wattershop Spag and it is fantastic to see how their program and the way they built it into their sustainable financing program is constantly reiterating the importance of the flood defenses in the Netherlands. So it is possible and investors are there to listen. I think it's just we probably need to just kind of probably clarify some of it and just bring it more and more to the forefront. So thank you. Wonderful, thank you Caroline. And I know there's some things that you've raised that I definitely want us to come back to in the Q&A particularly around sustainability-linked instruments that you were referring to. Faith, thank you for joining us and you bring a really important Asadona perspective to all of this. So over to you. Thank you Ben and completely for all the comments that have been made so far and thank you very much for having the opportunity. This is a topic I feel quite passionate about and sometimes actually fueled by anger actually sometimes some of the situations that we find ourselves in. And Asadona, as you say, I'm part of the Brunel Pension Partnership. We are a global investor and about 35 billion of assets under management so we're trying to cover this issue in a global context. But I know today we're focusing a little bit on that as much on the Adapted UK. Before commenting on this report I just wanted to touch on another report that we use quite extensively in our work which is the World Economic Forum sort of Global Risk Report. It's in its 18th edition. It came out mid-January and it clearly identified that both companies and business leaders are seeing kind of climate risk going up the agenda. It dominates the top four in looking at that 10-year perspective and actually in the more near term dominates the top five in about 16 countries, as Karen said, unsurprisingly in the Netherlands amongst all of them. So there's definitely a growing recognition of the perception of climate risk. Adaptation comes in at number two in that list. But I wanted to quote something that comes underneath that analysis that I think kind of really sums up the challenges that we have. The diversion of attention and resources towards adaptation may further slow the progress of global targets in countries who make the biggest contributors. Now, I was quite cross as you can imagine. So whilst I hold the WEF report in high regard and we find it's very useful to create a false dichotomy between attention to mitigation and attention to adaptation as if they're in either or I think is actually deeply unhelpful. And I think it's sort of, I think the report is actually the report that we're launching today I think has done an excellent job and summarized it very eloquently some of the challenges. It is harder in adaptation than it is in mitigation. I think we need to sort of, and we've acknowledged that ourselves. So one of the other things we've done recently and we acknowledge, and I was quoting from this one, we acknowledge that physical risks and climate change, the focus on adaptation resilience has not had the attention required by companies or investors and for an essential part of our fiduciary duty. So even somebody as passionate myself completely acknowledges we have not done enough by any margin at all. And I was trying to think through reading this. I mean the report very much goes in perhaps some of the challenges around the carrots as the expression goes in terms of how can you make this particularly for private capital. Sometimes it's less obvious or harder to extract, particularly in a private context what some of those carrots might be. But actually the stick is almost completely absent as well and I think this is a challenge outside of Brinnell Pension Partnership which does not a coincidence which includes the environment agency. My feet are not held to the fire for my lack of action on adaptation. I don't have NGOs, beneficiaries anybody writing to me and calling me to account for the fact that I have not engaged on this or I've not done that. I mean we do but nobody holds me to account in the same way they do if I have holdings in Shell or BP and I get a lot of correspondence on our investments inside of like the mining or the oil and gas sector and yet nothing. So that accountability, that stick is just not there and I do think that's one of the areas where I felt the report possibly, possibly building on Emma's comments, I think possibly pulled its punches is that I think we need to have lack of action on adaptation be as socially unacceptable as lack of action on mitigation and it currently just isn't it just isn't there. So the other area where we can get sort of more accountability is be kind of outliers around some of these sort of reporting mechanisms be talked about kind of building and I think Caroline sort of also built on this too about building on the work of the TPT and the transition plans however at the moment I would say that's really weak so I think in the ISSB the TPT SSDR name the number of acronyms that you like. Adaptation is a poor by a country mile basically it does not get the coverage that it needs its emphasis is woefully inadequate so although there is the capacity to use those mechanisms and I absolutely completely support that at the moment it's not going to face enough it's not forcing investors to take the action that's actually desired. I thought the report was absolutely excellent and I would highly commend it to anybody in the sort of private finance or anybody to read it but obviously my role here is to kind of speak for some of the private finance I thought it was really good and I found it really helpful not least because I know that we need more to be more equipped as investors to sort of take action. So what is it actually Brunelston trying to move forward? Well we are trying to move forward in our stewardship we're going to be advocating much more powerfully both the policy makers there's loads I'm sure we'll dig into these the policy problems are manifold in terms of some of the challenges around that but also stewardship with companies how can we get the companies to actually make some of the capital investments and encourage that activity we'll be doing analytics on our listed holdings and actually have a dedicated program for our stewardship program. Within our private markets it's already part of our due diligence but it's about taking it up a level and also being able to report and evidence this there's actually some fantastic examples actually within our private markets within Brunelston the investments we've made and I might touch on some of those later where some of the managers are doing some fantastic work in setting out sort of plans to retrofit and build in adaptation to in particular real estate and infrastructure and it's about being able to evidence that and I think there's a part of them I think the report talks about leadership if we can see examples it kind of has that sort of natural sort of snowballing effect. One of the tools we'll use is the CREM tool which is the climate real estate climate risk real estate model which we're asking this year we'll be demanding more transparency in terms of the models that are identifying the value of the risk and then what are what are the real estate managers and finally also putting on money where our mouth is it is an explicit part of our next round of our infrastructure infrastructure cycle in terms of our investments we've identified the environmental objectives and a dedicated area to climate solutions of which adaptation is a component part and whilst it is still more tricky I think there is the the desire there to try and find investments in that space so can't guarantee it because you have to see what opportunities present themselves but I think there is we are very much kind of really trying up our game and sort of encourage other investors to do likewise and to help us all like you mentioned the fact I'm chair of IGCC and IGCC itself is also opening its game and supporting investors in taking action and it's got a programme of worker on climate resilience investment framework which is it did a consultation and it's building that working that you'll see an awful lot more coming through to support investors in the coming months I think to take action so a bit of moaning but some tangible actions that as an investor in this space that we're taking so hopefully that's helpful some things to dig into I'm sure we'll stir a few questions as well. Thanks Faith and it wasn't just moaning it was constructive moaning so very important I mean I think one of the things we also talk a lot about in the report is understanding the contributions that investors and financial institutions are making to actually not just a positive adaptation outcomes but negative ones so practices investments that are actually resulting in maladaptation and undermining societal resilience so we need to understand that more and our ability to understand that's quite constrained but that's also very important. Okay things will come back to in the Q&A but Svenja colleague on the adaptation over to you. Yeah well thank you very much it's great to be here I think you know first of all I really want to praise the report I mean I have to say it's a really important piece of work and you know the committee team but also several of the underpinning case studies that underpin it so you know really take some time and look at those I mean it's not just a report it has a lot of examples and I think you know the timing of the report is actually really crucial I come back to that in a minute so you know first of all big compliment to all those who were involved I think you know it's urgently needed for commitment I think but also for the finance section for businesses and I am actually so pleased when I looked at the attendee lists that we actually have quite a good and varied participation here and I think this is really also at the heart of you know I guess Ben when both of us joined the committee last year I think we're really keen to have also greater interactions and engagement with the business and finance world because I think as we've heard adaptation remains in a way the Cinderella of the climate finance discussion and you know that might sound fun or you know Cinderella but I think it's it's a real concern because you know I think that two clear points we can't achieve net zero without adaptation I think you know that that is essential and you know the lots of reasons why and if you read the report you'll understand but also adaptation is an investment and too often I think it's it's still seen as a cost or you know when we say investment it's really difficult to capture you know the co-benefits and requires new mechanisms so I think you know the report really tries to disentangle that and outlines ways forward and I think that's actually really really important if you mentioned the global risk report for me the key takeaway was actually the growing concern about failure adaptation in there because I think that was like the second or third highest ranking risk and I think that acknowledgement that actually you know people are concerned about the failure of adaptation well that's quite an achievement I would say my you know the flip side would be okay well if you're concerned about failure why are we not acting on it and I think this is the interesting part I think with adaptation we've come a long way in our understanding of the risk and you know quite naturally when you start an adaptation conversation you say well let's first assess the risk and understand the risk and yes of course that is important but to be frank we never had a better understanding of the physical risks and also the responses needed I think where we actually are still struggling is to then translate that into action and you know I think to have plans and policies and you know a pathway is a good thing and definitely we need that but I think it's also really important that these get implemented and the committee on climate change our strategy of duty is to check progress on adaptation and indeed we will later this year publish our next adaptation progress report and in there I always get immensely frustrated because we are also looking at the quality of plans and policies and proposals and I always shake my hands that well we really need to measure the quality of the adaptation on the ground and I think that's really what this needs to be all about and adaptation is no longer just a sort of distant concept the failure to adapt is visible right now we see that when you look back at the extreme events across the world and I think our failure to act in anticipation early to reduce risk and to prevent that that just makes it more costly and I think this is really where I have the hope that this report points out the barriers but doesn't stop there and also sort of takes then some of these really fascinating innovations into account so I think it's really important to understand the risk and focus on the risk assessment side but don't stop there I think that's where we are at the moment a bit stuck when we look at disclosure for example when we look at adaptation reporting it usually just captures the risk itself but it doesn't really go into the detail of what's happening in terms of addressing the risk and I think there I want to finish also with a bit of a pitch and a plea I mean the committee on climate change is also responsible for the UK climate change risk assessment and we've now entering the fourth cycle of this so we have UK climate change risk assessment one, two and three I had the pleasure of writing the business and industry chapters for two and three and I think we really could have done better with engaging with the business and finance sector and also taking into account the analytics, the insights that exist in this sphere so I think as we're now entering the fourth ground the fourth cycle I think while Ben and I were kind of adamant the committee's team is also really geared up to have better engagement with the business and finance committee so I think this report is actually a good starting point for that and then hopefully we will soon be able not just to point out that there are gaps and that it is urgent but also to point out that we are starting to see progress and that the capital that needs to be invested in adaptation is actually flowing and with that I'm looking forward to the discussion Great, thanks so lots of interesting points made by all the respondents and now we're going to have some time for a Q&A, a quick reminder that if you've joined late you can ask questions via Slido and if you've arrived on time you can also you're still on the call, have a look at Slido and you can upvote questions as well and I'll take a look at those shortly but before we go to Slido I have a couple of questions I want to ask panelists, so first question and this is to Emma first and then to Faith how does investing in adaptation for a physical asset differ to investing in addressing systemic risk? Thank you Ben, that's a great question and I think something that is going to be absolutely key to making sure that the UK or indeed anywhere in the world is well adapted to climate risks, we've got a number of examples quite iconic ones where you may get the individual asset being made resilient to for example flooding, I think various buildings in New York but I can also think of at least one conversation that I've had around a shopping centre in an area of the UK that floods quite frequently and the effort is put into making that particular asset resilient to flooding but then it stands in splendid isolation when the flooding occurs because if you haven't invested in better protecting the road infrastructure the rail infrastructure you may be stuck shopping as a worker or at a shopping centre as a worker or indeed as someone else as football and unable to get there or get home afterwards in some instances for many, many weeks as water begins to is slow to disappear and the infrastructure is slow to go back into being able to be used and this is where we do need to put more emphasis in that systemic risk again I have had conversations with infrastructure providers that when they have spent money making their bit of infrastructure more resilient to flooding they have recognised that perhaps if they clubbed their money put their money together with other infrastructure providers and they found a particular city or town they may have been able to invest less but gain better protection not just for their asset but for more assets that impacted by flooding and that is much more difficult to work out how best to invest to make sure that overall good is being spread further so we need to make sure that we are looking at systemic risk but that systemic risk aspect is even more complicated to do but if you bring in different the right collaborative network I think it is solvable and is one way that you share the benefits and the co-benefits beyond resilience but also net zero nature restoration if you get it right thank you thanks Emma Faith I support what Emma said and say that it mirrors our experience although some investors are getting better at recognising that bigger picture it has been a conversation that has been mirrored by ourselves in terms of speaking to partly because the models and some of the tools they are given are very asset specific and therefore are massively undervaluing for physical risk in terms of valuations and therefore financial risk so I think there are some challenges in the models we have don't adequately pick up the systemic aspect of it as well and that exacerbates the conversations I think this is where the best community can bring quite a lot to the picture because we are obviously looking at this we own a lot of assets globally so some of the work we might do on the sovereign debt the sovereigns are making themselves their strength of being their adaptation strength into their sovereign bond rating could then reflect well on the private infrastructure individual assets so you could bring some of those different parts of the investor asset allocation together in terms of sort of that sort of collective intelligence on some of those issues and just talking to the managers very similar to as Emma outlined really asking them about the initial question is about the resilience of that particular asset and the community what about the roads, the infrastructure we have quite a lot of investments in logistics the warehouse is the least of the problem if the investments in logistics the accessibility and things like that so having those sort of conversations is becoming more common-faced and this is what we need all asset owners and asset managers to be doing those discussions to make sure that we are addressing these issues systemically because it is a systemic risk that we need to address but yes more complicated and this is the tools that we're equipped with at the moment probably don't meet the need and then might I add this is where having standards understanding what you're aiming for as a country at a sort of city by city region by region level would be helpful for everyone to understand the standard of resilience that they're investing into and I think would help investors gain more clarity too great thanks Emma thanks Faith so next question and this is for Caroline and Faith might also want to come in on this so Caroline what is the one action you think a financial institution could take to help support investment into adaptation in the UK that's always a good question you know I was sort of actually thinking back on Emma's point just a second ago and you know how we do that region by region ultimately it's almost creating one metric I mean and I think that's the hard part that is actually because in a way when you think about where mitigation and forgive me I tend to call it more transition risks and you know there's different ways of kind of addressing these issues is the advantage that you have one number that everyone seems to be now kind of mobilizing around which obviously physical risk is very different I think the GDP one is an interesting one to really almost put the quantification of the loss versus the versus the the gain in a way but what could one thing be that we would do I would say getting actually a better understanding of the impact and I think that is where we are working and how to actually quantify that impact and how you can actually look at it and how that builds into the frameworks because ultimately that's what we're doing right it's how do you package that together and even when I think about what we did when we looked at this for the case studies there isn't one easy kind of thing that everybody can kind of put their finger on so I think if we can as an industry kind of work on maybe three or four even I think we're already working in the right direction both of you anything? Yeah I think it's if problems are multifaceted this is one of them so to distill it to one answer so I'm going to cheat and say that what I probably want all asset owners to be doing or asset managers is to set a commitment explicitly dealing with adaptation and their commitments and then what they're going to do is do some stewardship activities that might sit underneath that so that would be engaging with policy makers engaging with companies and the assets and the asset managers under their remit so it's a little bit of a cheat because it cascades down then in terms of those aspects but we all need to make an explicit commitment to what we're actually going to do and set targets in terms of our activities I would say around this space we do need more explicit action. And what would those adaptation targets sort of look like and Swenya did you want to come in as well on this point? I just respond to that question quickly but I suppose from a pensioner perspective ours will be around stewardship so it will be around the engagement with our general partners and infrastructure on general partners and advisors around real estate and the stewardship activities have outlined in terms of the companies who are most vulnerable when we analyse that using the tools which companies are more vulnerable and what the actions they're taking about it so it's setting a target in terms of the coverage so in the same way so currently it's quite common to set yourself a target to engage based on your finance submissions so 50% 70% 90% of your finance submissions you will target and contact those companies in terms of engagement you could do the same in terms of your physical resilience so in terms of like a level and say right I'm going to take the top 20 40 50 however your capability and capacities in terms of those companies you're invested in most vulnerable and commit to engage with those over the next two years that type of target Tony you want to come in? Yeah I just wanted to highlight I mean there's two angles to look at this and I guess the physical asset level you know resilient angle that's an important one but I also notice that there's growing demand into the sort of social side of adaptation and if you take sort of you know this ESG perspective that you know that sort of a lot of investors use as framing you know I get a lot of requests saying can you explain to me how adaptation sort of you know can be our way of investing in the assets of the ESG and you know the sort of social angle and I think this comes back to also the co-benefit side you know if you do adaptation right you know that can be massive co-benefits I think that's another important dimension of this. Yeah very much agree okay so another question this is for Emma and for Caroline so the report talks about adaptation demonstrator projects that can show the way illustrate how this can be done properly are there other examples you would highlight there's one bit of this question the second bit of this question is how can we ensure that the knowledge of what good looks like is widespread and shared and adopted by the right sorts of people so Emma do you want to go first? Thanks Ben and again this is where I think collaboration is absolutely key to spread the word it's similar to what needs to happen with regulators as well that those working through the environmental lens need to look through the economic lens and the financial lens and make sure that we are highlighting the many many examples that exist if you're looking at nature related adaptation projects then a good place to go to is the Green Finance Institute's Hive again this has been funded by Esme Ferben Foundation and the idea is not just in the UK but around the world to highlight great innovation in finance around nature with a strong link often into adaptation I think there's even a lesson in how organisations such as the Environment Agency make sure that they are highlighting what they are doing with other sectors other parts of government but also the private sector because there's no doubt that up and down the country over the last 10 years where the investment from government albeit with partnership funding as well has led to flood defences being put in place some grey infrastructure but some nature and green infrastructure in there as well but we need to really show how that investment from predominantly the public sector to benefits so again good examples up and down the country but we need to really shine a spotlight on the protection that is brought about but also look at other aspects of adaptation as well the heat waves last year showed how the impacts sit on and have felt in many many different sectors and infrastructure we haven't really touched on food farming and food security linked to climate change but again this feels like an area that is only going to need more investment and more attention and where things are done to make improvements we need to shine a spotlight on them thanks Caroline do you want to come in? I think it is so interesting you almost have to think of this as a Venn Diagram and to Emma's point there are so many different aspects that we are trying to actually that is the greatest challenge for adaptation is actually bringing that all to the forefront because to some extent also where the narrative is very positively changing into systems and how that full ecosystem and how the whole chain is affected because I think when you look at infrastructure financing a lot of this is happening it's just not actually being called out into this area as explicitly as we probably should be when I think of a lot of the environmental assessments that are being done and all of that for this project actually has again a direct or indirect benefit from an adaptation point of view so it's probably showing how this is actively being done day in day out and labelling that because it's in pockets and we're not able to probably articulate it as well as what's generally happening on the ground the other thing is I think the piece that was mentioned earlier about carbon credits or biodiversity credits is to also really help from a monetization point of view and hopefully that can also help mitigate or reduce some of the funding costs associated with some of these projects and really start to think about what you can do there it is pulling all these pieces together which is actually the greatest challenge I think that we face I just want to briefly add the importance of the green taxonomy work where there is an adaptation and resilience strand I think sometimes we need to work out a way of moving away from the adaptation resilience language because I don't think it is always helpful that's one of the reasons why I started talking about climate security but often it's better understood when you bring it down to the shade that will be required the flood protection the water security and I think from an investor perspective green taxonomy and a focus on those services and investments that will lead to greater resilience will be helpful great thank you for that so we're going to now open it up to people that are on the line we have a poll as well that has been that's on Slido and I think some of you have responded already so which of the five barriers identified as the most significant from your experience and it looks like market let's give this 30 seconds for you to vote another 10 seconds okay so market and financial out in front followed by policy and regulation those being the dominant too which is very interesting and now we've got a variety of questions so you can take down the poll now colleagues and thank you for putting questions about voting things so first question from the audience are we doing enough to track existing levels of public and private adaptation finance how can we improve this so we know where the gaps are and how we need to close them now who wants to have a crack at that faith the green taxonomy very much that's what it should be it's a very consistent definition as to what we're talking about at the moment though particularly the EU taxonomy it doesn't capture everything there's no going back to this there isn't enough acknowledgement of the positive contribution made in adaptation finance by private company perhaps they can't grab hold of or basically get credit for some of that expenditure in the current definitions of the EU taxonomy is looking at and I know that there's a sort of dedicated greed to try and improve the current kind of way that is expressed because it's not it takes you some distance but there's very limited limited areas that you can currently get credit for taxonomy and we need it wider so that's the answer we just need to get that could be the right conduit to the question is it worth the answer but we need to make it work and at the moment the risk that it won't if we just followed what you've done Thanks both, Bea I very much agree with the importance of the green taxonomy I guess the other side of it is knowing how much is enough which is why we think it's really important for the government to set out in the NAP3 and green finance strategy sort of clear goalpost for how much for where we need to get to in terms of UK climate resilience and then also what that split is in terms of public private financing so we know where we're trying to get to tracking questions I mean it also in overlapping areas you know with the 25 year environment plan and the government's commitments around the targets for the amount of private investment going into nature for example you know how do we measure that on a consistent basis public and private and we still don't have we don't have an answer for that nor do we have a sort of an answer for adaptation clearly and these things are related so joining them up I think is important. Emma was that yes and I think you've used the figure in your report but I I often cited the IPA the infrastructure and projects authorities pipeline for infrastructure builders decade which I think is still at 650 billion you can see what the flood budget allocation is for a period of time you can't actually see how the and that relates to roughly 5 billion of that 650 billion which to my mind is a thin green line of defence around adaptation resilience but we need to understand how much of that other infrastructure has adaptation and resilience embedded into it and this is where the standards point the work that the recommendation that you've called for with an office for budget responsibility report looking at how what a well adapted UK looks like we need to join these dots up because at the moment we've only got small indicators of how much money is going into adaptation and resilience there may be more but equally this may be signalling that a lot is still being built without those climate shocks those climate hazards the way we're flip flopping as well from too wet to too warm and the impact that that then has on infrastructure and maintenance so again are we building enough into our investment strategies to make sure that we're maintaining existing infrastructure as well as that infrastructure that we're building now that is going to be around for decades and factoring that into so a lot is heading in the right direction but a lot more could be done to join this all up and I just think briefly I mean we haven't mentioned maladaptation in this space and I think it's an important point to keep in mind because when we say adaptation yes we clearly need more in terms of quantity but the quality also needs to be good and we need to actually know what we're doing with you know these investments and sort of monitoring the effectiveness and avoiding maladaptation and actually avoiding also some other unintended consequences with this is really important and that's I think why we need to have good monitoring systems and measuring the progress not just in terms of money spent but also then how effective it is yeah outcomes achieved rather than ounce invested okay we've got one question that's right at the top in terms of popularity from David Vincent so ever since the Victorians UK governments have had to wait until there's a crisis before taking action on infrastructures adaptation any different is the question and then a supplementary question how how is the UK doing in relation to other jurisdictions on adaptation investment are we are we lagging behind are we average are we actually so we're actually doing quite well but could do loads better what do people think and who wants to go first Caroline sure I can do that I you know maybe I'll take the first question or the second question first if that's all right because I actually do think that the year that the UK is lagging some of our European peers I think they have actually started to think about this a little bit more and it comes back actually to the earlier conversation about where can this happen and it I think actually as we build it more into the actual local authorities municipalities who are actually in control of that to actually then pull it up which is actually ultimately what France is doing as well if you look at the regional governments they are driving a lot of this and then linking that together again with the environmental aspects or biodiversity natural capital and trying to kind of as I was saying about that that bend diagram bringing these three pieces together I you know obviously the Netherlands as you raised earlier is definitely leading the charge to you know there was no option they had to address this issue and over time I worry as well that it's the UK is going to have to do something because those floodplains are developing their subsidence there's a lot of different things are coming through and definitely the insurance space are starting to call this out with regard to certain properties which may not be insurable so you know there is an absolute connectivity here that needs to be sorted but I would tend to go it's probably harder for a national government and so forgive me coming from Canada to actually try to do this versus trying to build it up from the local authorities and the municipalities to then bring it up now the one piece that needs to connect that as what I keep sort of harping on is the metrics and forgive me it's a typical kind of finance perspective on this because the more we have those metrics tied up across the UK the easier it is to then sell it into the capital markets because somebody they have that North Star to follow along so hopefully that sort of answers both questions thanks thanks Caroline Faith yes and I'd say that the the the challenge as a global investor as well as that we're looking at these challenges globally not just not just within the UK so in terms of our bandwidth we do need to kind of that's not to say that I think that the UK needs to do better and certainly from our perspective the you know a large portion of our real estate and infrastructure is within the UK so that kind of gives it that that locus in that particular particular area but trying to pick these challenges I think sometimes the way to frame that challenge from an investment perspective is obviously the capital markets in London are exposed to that risk irrespective so there is there is that connectivity back to the UK and therefore is taking action perhaps leading the way on establishing metrics and the way to sort of bring this into financial markets if we've got a really good reason to do so not only because of our own adaptation and resilience but actually that of our capital markets as well so I think there's a double gain to be made there but I will defer to others in terms of where we sit sort of relative to others on that I think that people have that expertise yet Emma Emma? This is perhaps where we need to channel some of FAKE's earlier expressed anger where we are today and I think where you can pinpoint to different parts of the world being further advanced on adaptation and resilience I don't think any of us are acting swiftly and or as urgently as we need to be to address this ever growing issue I think given some of the work that I have done globally or specifically when I was the UK's commissioner on the global commission on adaptation work that I've done since often it is those countries which are absolutely on the forefront of the climate crisis who are literally one or two events away from catastrophic loss of lives and livelihoods where they are based that have embedded responsibility for climate change both mitigation but preparing for these shots within the heart of their financial ministries because they've literally seen GDP large percentages of it wiped out in former cyclones etc and I think this is also where we're seeing some of the innovation we've seen a recent announcement with philanthropy and the private sector working on providing parametric insurance for women working out in the field in India where they are suffering hugely working in 50 degree heat this is the sort of thing that we are now experiencing and we have a lot to learn from those parts of the world that are investing in some of the systems some of the metrics some of the warnings and informings that will allow their citizens to be protected in some of this extreme weather that is now experienced and I think wherever you are we've just got to get ahead of how we embed adaptation and resilience into the way we live our lives but also in finance, thank you So another question will bring together a couple of threads is one question about in the Riverwire case study where was the monetary value obtained to pay for the private investment and I guess this is sort of the bigger question a really fundamental question we talk about in these terms in the report we need investable and bankable cash flows that are often missing so how do we create them what are the opportunities to do so there's another question around should carbon credits really be used for adaptation that's one way potentially of creating cash flows is it the right way Caroline I wonder whether you have any views as an investor So I think it's one of those certainly challenged concepts generally I think there's very strong views are they in or are they out do people like them how are they used etc I think one thing that came out of COP26 that they definitely have a role Article 6 was relatively clear and I think more and more as I start to think about them if that is one of the tools and it comes back to that kind of carrot and stick approach then we shouldn't exclude them when you think of one of the examples that was raised is if we can have natural flood defenses being built those can generate carbon credits and that's why I sort of use it carbon and biodiversity credits because they can be taken in both ways and I think that's where we do need to be a bit open minded on how these could be applied and should not exclude them but actually see how they kind of accelerated I know there was another question about innovative innovative instruments and we are starting to see these come to the market now where there are actually carbon credits particularly in the emerging markets associated and that can either give you give the investor an additional coupon uplift from the carbon credit or the other option is actually filtering that back through to the actual source and the activity so that one reduces the cost of financing to do this so I think I wouldn't I do see the role but I'm happy to open that to the floor obviously we would say that because we are having an interest in it and we've been involved with carbon place and various other initiatives around carbon markets we've used them for our own operational footprint since 2014 so I think it depends a little bit from where you're coming from as well does anyone else want to come in yeah I mean just going specifically to the question around the river wire again this involved not just the investors but those businesses that were going to benefit from the services provided from reduced flood risk so that included the environment agency flood re united utilities and setting up a series of contracts which captured those services so that you created the flows over a period of time I think some of the lessons learned are around the timing the time and how long you invest in and how you make sure that what is being provided exists for a number of years and these are the sorts of things that once worked through you hope become scalable and usable in other projects I think this is where the natural environment investment readiness fund also comes in that's had DEFRA natural England environment agency green finance institute working with those organisations those businesses up and down the country which are putting together natural flood management schemes as well as other and it's not just flood and adaptation it does lead to mitigation finance as well working up the business cases working up the models which then can be invested in and I think one of the things that's been great over the last few years although we need to scale up big time is where government funds have been put into the smaller pilots and building going along a series of this is what we need to do next this is what we need to do next in order to bring in the larger amounts of funding to invest in these projects so we need to learn from others around the world we need to learn from what we've been doing already scale it up and start getting those flows happening at pace thanks great thanks thanks Emma so we are we're now running out of time so what I wanted to do is just open it up to the panel for any last contributions and reflections if you have any both so one of the areas that sort of touched on is the sort of the regulator and certainly I personally voted for policy and regulatory because there are some quite perverse aspects of some of the ways and some of the measures that we do actually currently have around if you actually retrofit if you try to improve sometimes your rating can actually go back which is just mental so we need to find a way of making sure that the regulatory instruments that we already have the metrics we have do not have perverse outcomes so that actually businesses are encouraged to actually invest in adaptation and they do don't get perverse outcomes so there is reviews needed in some of those areas I'd say I particularly focus on real estate as a particular case in point around that and the things like EPC ratings and such like there's some very strange outcomes from doing the right thing in some instances Thanks Faith Sonia I think this picks up on this point of the narrative and also the visibility of adaptation and I think that is at the core of this if you're an investor if you're an insurer, if you have business or a regulator you actually want to know if you do this are you better adapted and I think we often don't fail at that to really clearly you know make this easily visible and you know there are these questions around Keitman scheme, certificate cation of resilience and so on and I think they all play a role but I think it really needs to be tangible because then you can insert it into a financial decision when someone approaches you and says well I've done X this give me a better credit rating does this mean I'm a better insurance risk does this mean you know I'm a local authority that deserves you know more inward investment and I don't think that is happening yet it's starting but I think that could unleash a lot of a lot of the right financial decisions around adaptation Thank you Emma did you want to come in I wanted to finish with a huge thank you to the Committee on Climate Change and the Adaptation Committee in particular what your report does is bring together a whole range of different strands that I and others have been working on for many years you've brought some extra visibility to the need for adaptation of finance you've called very specifically on NAP3 and the Green Finance strategy is two things that are being worked on this year that could make a difference to adaptation finance there's a whole range of other things as well which are vitally important so I suppose it's a thank you to you but also an appeal to everybody who's listened in and everybody who listened into this over time to make more of this area of work because it is urgent it deserves to be more centrally picked up across the whole of government and not just those departments that are charged with looking after adaptation and resilience, thank you Thank you Emma, Caroline And I'll just really quickly follow I would have said the report was hugely welcomed because I think it actually this was what's needed it needed to be brought really to the forefront and I think the timing is very good there's a lot of different pieces coming together I think what Faith called out is that commitment if we can somehow formulate that and get actually that buy in across to actually commit to something and that everybody really drives this forward is super super important and the other one I think was very astute is can we build this ever more into all the work streams that are happening like the transition task force and all these places and just immediately putting that in right away then it gives this a lot more viability in the long term and so thank you very much Well thank you Caroline and a big thank you to respondents the panel for engaging in the report and in this discussion and the questions from the audience it is clearly crunch time as you said Emma and as we say in the report the green finance strategy that three key moments this year we need to lay the foundations to ensure that capital flows in the right direction that we're making sure that enough capital is being deployed into adaptation so that we can have a resilient future and obviously if we don't make those decisions and those investments in the near term we're going to we're going to store up some really big big issues for the UK so I also wanted to sort of say congratulations reiterate what Svenia and Emma and others had said to the CCC team and thank you B for your presentation and Brendan for being on the call as well and for the rest of the team thank you for people being on and staying to the end and then the final thing I wanted to say is that this is the first of what we hope will be many engagements with financial institutions and those working on finance on both adaptation and mitigation from the CCC and so we will be in touch with you and with wider stakeholders soon about how we're going to be doing that but it's clearly something that's incredibly important and aligning finance with environmental sustainability climate goals is obviously a necessary condition for mitigation and adaptation and the UK has a particularly important role to play so we will be engaging much more on finance and investment going forward and on that note we'll


Okay, we're now going to create a moon for one of the planets and we're going to create a ring for another so I'm going to start by Working on this first planet, and I'm going to just press F to frame that up I'm going to duplicate it and then I'm going to move The new one out. I'm going to call it moon and Then I'm going to scale that down So that it's really small. It should be something like 0.02 like that I'm just going to make that look like it's in orbit of that planet there Okay, so that's the moon done nice and straightforward The ring is actually going to start off as a Taurus, which is this little chap here that looks an awful lot like a doughnut So I'm going to click on that There it is and Then we need to make some changes. So the section radius needs to be not point to so we're working under the inputs here Like so and what that does is just makes it kind of like a thinner tube The height on the y-axis so scale y needs to also be zero point two and You can see if we were making a ring for the Sun that would already be perfect But we're not we're making it for one of the planets So what I need to do now is position it around one of the planets and I'm going to choose this one and There are lots of different ways again that you could position this but I want to make sure that this ring is Exactly positioned around this planet. So the way to do that is to look what the values are for translate X I can see they're four point nine five five. So I'm going to click on that and I'm going to copy it In fact, I'll just remember it four point nine five five And I'm going to click on the ring. I'm going to put in Four point nine five five and then present her and now I know that that is perfectly positioned around the planet They should be all I need to do then is scale it uniformly until it looks like it is the right scale Which I'm happy with that that's beautiful and then I'll rename that Ring okay in the next step, we're going to put this into a hierarchy so that it's ready for animation


So we just derived the continuity equation. Now what we're going to do in this segment is going to look at a few simplifications of the continuity equation. So I'm writing up the continuity equation in differential form. That's what it'll look like. Simplifications that we can sometimes come across. First of all we could be dealing with flow fields that are steady. So if we have a steady flow then the partial by partial t term would be equal to zero and what we then end up with is just del dot rho v equals zero. If we have an incompressible flow we know for incompressible density is equal to a constant. If density is equal to a constant the time rate of change of density will be zero. So what we then end up with is del dot v equals zero and del dot v remember when we looked at the vector operators we said that that was the divergence operator and that's quite often whenever you talk about an incompressible flow you always say del dot v is equal to zero but expanding that out what it looks like is the following. So that would be for an incompressible flow. Now in the case of liquids, liquids for the most part in fluid mechanics we view as being incompressible and in the cases of gases they're incompressible for velocities less than a Mach number of 0.3 and Mach number is defined as the local flow speed divided by the speed of sound. So m is the Mach number and a here would be speed of sound. So as long as we stay at 30 percent or lower than the speed of sound in air then for the most part we can view the flow as being incompressible and then we can simplify the continuity equation in the way that we've just seen. So the main one is whatever you're dealing with incompressible flows you all often hear people say del dot v is zero and that is then just a shorthand notation for the continuity equation for an incompressible flow field. What we'll do next we'll look at a different coordinate system for the continuity equation. We're going to look at the cylindrical coordinate system and then we'll solve the problem and then after that we'll move on to momentum.


This video will talk about exponential functions. Exponential functions have a base that is greater than zero and can't be equal to one and there's all real numbers of x that can go into the domain. This defines the base B exponential function. So I have some examples down here. I have two to the x and over here at this table you can see that if I take two to the negative three, if you remember your exponent rule, that means one over two to the third or one eighth and then if I get down here to two to the zero, it's going to be one and so on. So then this graph comes here. So if we look at this graph here, we can see that it is increasing and then we want to talk about what the domains are. So it's increasing the domain. This thing is going like this forever and it's going like this forever. So this is going up and out to the right and it's going down and to the left. So it would be all reals. If we talk about the range, we want to know how high and how low. Well, this graph doesn't really kind of looks like it, but it never really crosses the x-axis. If I take two to the negative sum big number, I'm still going to have a fraction that's not zero. So we have to say that it's going to be from in a parentheses zero, but it goes up to infinity. So now let's look at and see if we can graph g of x is equal to one half to the x where B is between zero and one down here. So if we put negative three, that's going to be one half, but we have to flip it over to take care of the negative. And then we have two to the third, which is going to be eight. So negative three will give us positive eight somewhere way in the sky. And then this should be a negative two here. If I put negative two in there, I'm going to get four. And if I put negative one in there, I'll get two. And if I put zero in there, I'll get one and one half for one, one fourth for two and so on. You can see that this graph is going to be same basic shape, but it's going the other direction because it is decreasing. Now we want to look at the domain again, still going left and right forever. So that's going to be all reals. The range again is going to be from zero to infinity because it's above the x axis. So now we want to graph one ourselves. Now if we do that, let's see if I can make my graph a little bit better. We know, let's talk about the transformations here. So we have x minus three. So this would be three to the x normally. Look very similar to the first one we just looked at, a little bit steeper. But when we take the x and end the function, which is exponential function. So up in the exponent we're subtracting three. That means we're going to go right three. And then this plus two is going to move it up and down. That's what that constant does. So it's going to go up two. Let's see if we can draw in some axes here. It's not really easy to do with my tablet. But if I get in there's, we'll call that our y axis and we'll call this our x axis. And I want to do three to the x first. If I did three to the x, it would three to the zero would be one. Three to the first would be three and so on. So it would be a graph that looked like this. Oops, I missed, but you get the idea. Now we want to look at, take like this point here. We'll go over three, one, two, three, and then up two, one, two. And if we put zero in here, just so that we know what happens on the y axis, when x is zero, we're going to have three to the negative three, which is one ninth. And then that which would be way down here, then go up two. So one, two. So it would be somewhere around here. So this graph, it would look something like this. Domain is still all reals. The range is now tending toward, I probably should say, the range is now tending toward. I probably shouldn't have been quite so low. It's tending toward now this two. This is the better graph. Get rid of this. So the range should be that y is greater than two. So two to infinity. So we can't quite get to two. So the horizontal asymptote would be y equal to, and b is greater than one. It's an increasing function so that we know b is greater than one. All right, so let's talk about the natural number e. And I want you to realize that this is a number. It's not a variable. It's a number. For, it says x equal, it's greater than zero. Then as x goes to infinity, it gets really large. Then this little thing looking here, one plus one over x to the x, will become e. So if you were to put in your calculator one plus one over one million to the one million, you're going to find out that you get close to this number, which is 2.71, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And that's with the value of e. And it's a naturally occurring number in science, especially, and in nature. So it's so common, we call it the natural number. So y equal e to the x will be our exponential function using e. So it says find e to the x for f of 10. And really we're just saying, what is e to the 10? And I need to call my calculator up in a minute. And then this one's really saying e to the negative 3. So I've called my calculator up here. And we want to know e. To do find e, you do second ln. And it gives you the e with the caret. And we put in 10, and we're going to get this number, 22,026.46579. I'll put that in in a minute. And then we're going to do again over for f of negative 3, second ln, that gives me e. And then I put in negative 3, and we get .049. So it's a smaller number, because it's a negative. We're saying 1 over e to the third. So when I actually did these, this gave me, oh, thanks for going back again. The 10 was equal to 22,026, 22,026.47. And e to the negative 3 was .049. So we rounded to .05. So now we want to use our exponentials to solve some equations. And there's a couple of facts that we need to know. If B of m is equal to B of n, the bases are the same. Then we know that their exponents are the same. Equal bases implies equal exponents. If they're not equal, then the bases with the exponents aren't going to be equal to each other either. So we want to solve these problems. So we want to get the same base is what it's really saying. So 12, I can get 12 to the x. Because most of us know that 144 is 12 squared. So if my bases are the same, that means that my exponents are the same. So over here, I'm looking at 9 to the x minus 1. But 27, I can't think of, I mean, 9 squared is going to be 81. So my base can't be 9. But 3 squared would be 9. So I'm going to rewrite 9 as 3 squared. And then it's still raised to the x minus 1. And I know that 3 cubed is 27. So if I do my exponent property that says I can multiply my exponents when one's on the inside, one's on the outside, I'm going to have 3 to the 2x minus 2 is equal to 3 to the 3. Or we can say 2x minus 2 is equal to 3. 2x is equal to x is equal to 5 over 2. And we could double check that with our calculator. We could clear all this out and say, go back and say 9 carats. And then what did we say x was? I've got more than one thing happening in my exponents. So I need a parentheses. And it's 5 divided by 2. And then from that, I'm going to subtract 1. An order of operation says it'll divide before I subtract. And that should be equal to 27. And it is. So we know we did it right. All right. So then we need to do this one. And 1 half. And this is a fraction. This one's not. But I could make 1 half become 2. And that might be a little bit easier to work with. So I'm going to say that this is 2 to the negative first. That would be 1 half is equal to 3x. And I happen to know that 8 is 2 to the third. But I could always check in my calculator 2 to the x and find it where I find it 8. And I'd have x minus 2 to multiply these exponents. I know these exponents are going to be equal to each other. So I'm not going to carry down the base anymore. I'm just going to distribute my exponent. So negative 3x is equal to 3x, distributing minus 6. If I subtract this 3x over here, I'll have negative 6x is equal to negative 6, which tells me then that x is equal to 1.


All right, moving on to our next subcategory, most innovative views of moving with media. Could we have a short list of nominees, please? Subcategory is the George Jones Bear.