Right. Good afternoon, everyone. Pleased to see everyone again this afternoon. My name is Chiang Nguyen from Climate Work Center under Monash University, and I'm your host this afternoon. For those who didn't know about ASEAN Green Future yet, just a very quick summary of who we are. This is a multi-year program involving the UNSDSN, Climate Work Center, and our country teams, and we work together with leading universities and think tanks in South Asia, except for Brunei, to undertake the net-zero pathway to inform policy recommendations in South Asia. This morning session, in the morning session, we already discussed, started with the state of decarbonisation in South Asia, the regional collaboration, then followed by the presentation on decarbonising power sectors in Laos and in Malaysia, and then followed by a presentation on net-zero emission in power sector in Asia. For this afternoon session, we will hear from another three countries who also participate in the ASEAN Green Future project, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam. As an economist by background, I'm very excited and very honored to have three distinguished panelists who join me today from three leading economic institutions in Philippines and Singapore and in Vietnam. I would like to quickly introduce all of them three and please stand up so that people can see you before, later on, you present your presentation. First of all, Dr. Joy Abrinica from the Professor and Deans of the School of Economics, University of Philippines. Dr. Chu Wen-hee, Assistant Professor of the School of Social Science and Economics, Technology University in Singapore. Dr. Vo Son Vinh, Professor and Dean of the Institute of Business Research, University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City in Vietnam. So the afternoon session will be from 2.30 to 4.15 sharp and Professor Leong did remind me several times that I need to finish strictly at this time, so if I do look at my phone sometime, it's not just because I'm checking email or message, I just try to keep the time right. So without going further talking too much, I would like to start with the first presentation from Dr. Joy Abrinica and a little bit of introduction about Dr. Joy. Dr. Joy Abrinica is the Dean of University of the Philippines School of Economics. She teaches industrial organization and international trade course and her research interests are in the field of competition policy, industrial organization, international trade and technology. Please, the floor is yours, Dr. Joy. Good afternoon, everyone. This is very preliminary work with my colleagues from the University of the Philippines. Their names are all listed there. Okay, so I'll start with a bit of a context and that would explain why this is the results that I'd like to discuss today. So first about a little bit about the Philippines and why we are focusing on certain issues. Then I will look at the Philippine Energy Plan, which basically did the same modeling that we're doing now for the project and I would then discuss our preliminary results, the model that we have been working on as a team, the simulation scenarios and the results and the things that we need to do further. So let me start with the Philippines. What makes the Philippines a bit different from other ASEAN countries is that we have a power sector that is basically market-led. So we have the generation and the distribution and transmission all privatized. The implication of that is that the decisions that would have to be made in order to move forward with any net zero plan would depend largely on the private sector. The second thing to remember about the Philippines is that we have the second highest price of electricity in the region and this has been a problem that has plagued us for quite some time. We're only second to Japan in terms of power rate. So this is a big matter or big consideration when discussing any plan for the carbonization. We have not surprisingly no commitment to have net zero, partly because a lot of the decisions would have to be made by the private sector in the end and the government would just be there to provide the incentives and direction. What is the story about the Philippines? Pretty much the same as in the other countries that you've heard this morning. So the greenhouse gas emission, we have made the commitment to reduce 75% of the GHG, reference to the BAU scenario, which is from 2020 to 2030. If you don't do anything, the estimated greenhouse gas emission would be about 3,340.3 million tons of CO2 equivalent. And so the country's commitment is to reduce that by 75%, which is really big. And I noted this morning from the presentation of TRUANG that our commitment is exactly the same as that of Myanmar and I was telling my colleagues, I don't know who copied whom, but it's exactly the same. So what does it say? 75%, which is really, you need an aggressive plan to reduce it by 75%, but the commitment said that only 2.71% of that is unconditional. And so if we don't receive funding support from other countries, then we're okay if we are able to reduce it by 2.71%. So it seems like an empty commitment. So if we are to base that, if we are to follow the commitment, we need to be able to decouple the GDP from our CO2 emissions because we of course would like to grow as a country. So as a country, the main source of GHG is power generation, just like in other countries, and the main contributor to that is CODE. So there you go, you could easily determine what kind of policy intervention needs to be done. It has to be directed on the power sector and on the use of CODE. The context therefore is this, we need to define decarbonization pathway that will win the Philippines away from fossil-based fuels, that is number one, achieve the commitment that we have made, although it's a bit empty because only 2.71% is unconditional. But anyway, if we take the 75% reduction seriously, the pathway should be able to do that, and decouple GDP, energy supply, and GHG emission. So the government has been thinking about that. How do you move away from fossil-based fuels, but at the same time ensuring the sustainability and availability of energy? And they have identified the following priority measures. Now if you go over the list, immediately you'd say it's a confused list because on one hand the government says we don't want any more coal plants. So there is a coal moratorium. On the other hand, it says we would like to invest on exploration of oil and gas reserves. So it's kind of confused if you read the whole plan, but that's the reason I gave the context a while ago. Government is very conscious about the criticism that if you go for a plan that would remove us or reduce the dependency on coal, you have to make sure that such a plan will not raise electricity prices, and you have to make sure that there would be enough supply of energy moving forward. So the Philippine Energy Plan, which has been just recently updated, looked at two scenarios, which they call the reference scenario and the clean energy scenario. So in each scenario, there are targets with respect to RE, okay, LNG importation, use of biofuels, and electric vehicles won't go over each of these. So as would be expected, the clean energy scenario is more ambitious than the reference scenario. Okay, what does that plan produces in the end? It's a plan that was also run or vetted using LEAP. Of course, we didn't see the actual LEAP model, but only the results, and these are the results that are available from public documents. So the brown line is the reference scenario. This is the GHG emission from 2020 to 2040, and the red line is for the CES, because CES is more ambitious as would have been expected. It would be able to reduce GHG emission. But in the end, if we compare the plan against the commitment of the country, NBC commitment, the reference scenario will reduce GHG emission by about half, less than 75%, but definitely more than 2.71%. The same is true with the CES, the clean energy scenario. Now, then you have the question of, okay, does it remove the country? Do these plans win the country away from traditional fossil-based fuel sources? I looked at, we looked at the share in total primary energy supply of oil, coal, NG, and RE, and interestingly, what we found is this, even if the scenario has a built-in target for RE, you would see that over time, the share of RE in the energy supply is declining, and the share of NG is increasing, but the share of coal is declining. So, okay, if you look at that profile, it doesn't look very good. Okay, so while you are, while we are able to reduce coal, emissions from coal, well, also use of coal, the use of REs as targeted has not been achieved or as, yeah. Now, this is, the next question is, does the plan, the couple GDP and emission growth rates, and what we see here, obviously it doesn't. Okay, so the red line, the one on top is the GDP, projected GDP. The one on the bottom is the projected population growth rate, and on the middle is the GHG under a reference scenario. So while GHG emission would be growing less than GDP, which seems to be a good news, but still you see that as GDP grows, GHG emission is also growing. So we're not really decoupling the two, the two variables. And the same is the story with the clean energy scenario. And again, here you find that GDP is growing faster than GHG, which you could also consider as an achievement in itself. But again, as GDP grows, GHG emission also grows. Where you want that, those two variables to move in different direction. GDP growing while your GHG emission is declining. So we try to define our own pathways. I mean the UP team, my team from the UP University of the Philippines tries to project, define a pathway that could do three things, the three criteria that I mentioned. The first one is move us away from fossil-based fuels. The second is for us to achieve our commitment with respect to NDC, reduction of NDC contribution. And the third is to decouple GDP and GHG emission. So we made assumptions, some of which are common to the other members in the region. So the GDP projection is based on the shared socioeconomic pathway scenario too. I'd like to say something about that because that differentiates our work from the Department of Energy. The Department of Energy's updated plan, okay, made a projection of GDP based on the fact that we had COVID years where growth was really down. While this SSP, SSP scenario does not take into account COVID. So it's like there was, COVID did not happen at all. We made certain assumptions on the different sectors but I don't have time to go over each one. So let me focus on the electricity generation. Okay, the assumptions for household agriculture industry and services are all listed here as well as the transport sector but I'd like to focus on the electricity generation. So as I mentioned, the one important policy that stands out in the least that I showed a while ago is the no coal, no more new coal plants in the coming years, except that some plants, when the policy was announced, had already acquired PSA. This is the service agreement with the distributors and so they were exempted. So they would be built in the coming years. The existing policies pathway is very much like the reference scenario of the DOE with some modification. For example, in transport, we assume a 10% EV penetration rather than 5% as in the DOE plan. In this scenario, coal is not retired. This is because power plants, they're supposed to have 50 years life but they actually get rehabilitated and so in most plants, they're assumed not to be retired at all. So no coal retirement and we would allow LNG plants as new base load plants. The high ambition pathway now has a higher target of RE from 35% in the existing policies to 50% under high ambition and that in the high ambition also we are allowing all plants that are in the Department of Energy's so-called indicative list to be put up. So we're assuming that those plants would actually be put up. Now in addition to existing and high ambition plan, we also explored two variants of the high ambition plan. One invisions the commissioning coal plants when they have reached 50 years old and the other which we call HAP2, the commissioning earlier than 50 years but when they reach 40 years. So now I'd like to evaluate the pathways that we have explored against the three criteria that I mentioned. First, well this is by the way the comparison of our pathway with that of the DOE. Clearly our pathway, the plan that we have so far envisioned reduces greenhouse gas emissions more than the PEP. But let me show, this is the direction. These are the projected greenhouse gas emissions under the existing plan, high ambition and the two variants of the high ambition plan. So first question, are we moving away from traditional sources because of the plan that we have envisioned, that we have modeled? The answer is no. Again, here you see that while we have raised the RE targets and actually put RE in the priority dispatch also in priority investments, you see that the share of RE in total primary energy supply is declining over years even under the commissioning and early coal retirement plan. And like as expected, the share of coal is declining but the share of NG natural gas is increasing and we have not really reduced the share of oil. In fact, we have as you could see here become more dependent on oil. And that's true for the existing policies and high ambition plan. Are we achieving NDC targets with these new pathways? Again, the answer is no. At least if you use 75 percent as criteria, we're only able to reduce the GHG by more than 50 percent, roughly about 55 percent, much more than the DOE plan but still we're not able to reach that 75 percent target. Have we decoupled GDP and emissions? And again, the answer here for the two pathways is no. But the good news is that GHG emission grows lower than GDP. That's true for the high ambition pathway as well as existing policies. So given all that, given our initial results, what do we do? Obviously we have not found the pathway that will achieve the three results that we want. Move us away from fossil-based fuel, meet the NDC target, and decouple GDP and emissions. What do we do next? We have to explore technologies. We were very conservative in including technologies in our pathways. We have only used those that are currently being discussed or where we find commitments to build those plans. So we have not even considered nuclear because this is a very touchy issue in the Philippines for a number of reasons. We have also to look at, and this is very important, the constraints on the transmission should we consider other types of technologies. And that's where we would need not only economists to do the planning but also engineers. So we have an engineer in our team. We have not explored model shifts in transportation. Transportation is the next highest emitter of greenhouse gas. We have yet to raise the efficiency and conservation goals set by the government. It's only 5% until 2040. Imagine that. So we need to raise it, but we can only raise it up to a level that is realistic. Finally, we would have to evaluate the impact of whatever pathway we come up with on electricity prices because if we need to get social acceptance to this plan, it has to be a plan that will, that is sustainable, energy, environment friendly. But at the same time, it should not raise the electricity prices or ideally it should even lower electricity prices. That's all. Thank you. Thank you, Professor Joy Abranica. I'm sure we will have a lot of questions for her later on. But before that, I would like to introduce our next speaker, Dr. Chuo Yuhi will present us about decarbonizing the power sector in Singapore. Dr. Chuo Yuhi is an Assistant Professor in Economics at Nanyang Technology Co. University NTU in Singapore and the Assistant Honorary Secretary of the Economic Society in Singapore. His research interests lie in the intersection of finance and macroeconomics with the focus on topics in households, finance, sustainable finance, monetary, economic, behavioral, macroeconomics. And his research has been published in various reputational journals. And prior to his current appointment, Dr. Chuo was visiting top economics and finance, sorry, a postdoctoral scholar at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. And he's concurrently a member of the ACCA Association Charter Certified Accountant and a CFIA Charter holder as well. I would like to invite you on stage, Dr. Chuo and the floor is yours. Thank you very much for the kind introduction. Hi everyone, my name is Yuhui. Okay, this is a drawing book with Yus Teng Kwa, Chia Wai-Man, Zag Li and Tang Jun-Rui when in audience as well. So if you have any tough questions, please look for them. Don't ask me. So on behalf of NTU, it connects the vision and the EGC, another thing that organizes for inviting us to join this project. It's our privilege and our honor to and to contribute this project and we're very excited about this as well. So in this presentation, what we're going to do is to talk about Singapore's goals and plans first. Thereafter, I will zoom into different scenarios in the power sector that's based on our work in the AGF today. First, we'd like to qualify that this is highly preliminary. Sorry, it's very exciting. Okay, very preliminary because it's only based on the power sector. So for a more complete work, we will require to do a lot more and to give a more comprehensive overview of these other sectors at work. All right. For a start, let's just establish our objectives. So in November 2022, what's going to happen is that Singapore's revised NDC strives to reduce emissions to around 60 metric tons coming to our site equivalent in 2030 after picking emissions earlier. Now, so prior to this change, the goal was to achieve 33 metric tons coming to our site equivalent in 2050. But now the goal is to reach net zero in year 2050. So this is an ambitious goal. It's no mean fit. So how do we achieve this? So we must first have a plan. Okay. And this is Singapore's green plan. Now, so the Singapore's green plan requires a multi-sector approach and it's too much to know. I can actually go on for one lecture, in fact, talking about this green plan. Okay. But first, let me just highlight some key pillars of what we're doing. So Evidently is very broad. So we have city in nature, number one, whereby we plan more trees, increase our solar power generation, encourage industries to shift towards lower energy manufacturing, and also develop clean shipping fuels. So as most of us are probably aware, Singapore is a small city. Okay. So we are a city in nature. So all these things would be a key strategic trust for us to keep it going. So moreover, we hope to focus on energy reset. So we're going to have green finance, deploy floating solar PVs, and so forth. Now, from the demand side, how do we incentivize households to change their behavior? So one way is to import green electricity. But we're also going to do something even more. We're going to ban diesel, cars, and taxis from 2025. In particular, we're going to face up all the ICE, the internal combustion energy vehicles by 2040, and develop green bond markets. So essentially, the roads, the cars on the roads were now primarily hybrid vehicles or electric vehicles after 2040. And it's on top of the stringent traffic so-called policies that government implemented. Green economy, we're going to have open new parks, develop liquid natural gas. Now, and also we're going to have a resilient future by having a carbon tax, developing carbon services, and we also want to reduce mandates to reduce waste. And nowadays, when we go to the market in Singapore, they're going to charge you now for the use of plastic bags. And based on end-of-the-evidence, it's proved to be quite effective. My dad and mom now go to the supermarket with recyclable bags in that sense. So I was quite heartened to see that. Now, for an economist, all these policies could prove to be very challenging to model. So there's so many things going on at the same time. So what can we do? So as economists, we always say, setterous parables. So all things constant in this presentation, we're going to focus only on one thing, which is power sector decommunization, in that sense. So to identify the impact of carbon sector, it's not easy. So again, I've got to qualify that it's very primary findings that we have. And it's particularly so for Singapore. Now, Singapore has limited land and renewable energy. Unlike other countries with the opportunity to tap on renewable energy, Singapore does not have such opportunities to tap on. At this point in time, 95% of Singapore's electricity is generated from natural gas. So to transit to a new carbon-like economy or carbon-zero economy, we're heavily reliant on the development of new technologies and also international collaboration. So we need to work together. By the same time, Singapore is heavily dependent on trade and we would like to preserve our competitiveness in that sense. So this vigorous of the global energy markets is also something we must be very, very off. So to explore different scenarios or different situations, there are several possible ways. So let me highlight three possible cases presented by the Energy Market Authority here. So one way is to achieve a diversified supply mix, so the one in green. So it's possible that one day Singapore has, let's say, hydrogen, imports, others, geothermal, solar. That's diversified. Secondly, we can just be heavily reliant on imports in 2050. So we know there's a lot of opportunities for regional grid, a clean regional grid that can tap on. Or we can also have a situation that is dominated by low carbon hydrogen in 2050. So each of these have different consequences. And each of these would address different challenges that we face exactly. So I will get this as having an energy trilemma. So what's a trilemma means? So dilemma means two, trilemma means three. So the trilemma here refers to affordability, security, and sustainability. So as highlighted here, we are completely reliant on the import of oil and gas for energy needs. And we need to price our energy correctly to make sure that we use it prudently. So while we have taken steps to have a cleaner fuel mix, more can be done. And how can we actually model them? We're going to focus on four switches. So the four switches we're going to use primarily will be as follows. So as follows, what we have is solar, first of it, regional power grids, and low carbon alternative, and natural gas. So as part of our homework for this AG F program, what we want to do is we are going to come up with two scenarios. So based on what we have learned throughout the past few months, what we hope to map out is two scenarios. The first scenario is what we call the mitigation scenario, which is our work that we've done to date. It's so called proposed by Singapore's government. And a high emission pathway is like our wish list or what can be done even more. Let's push ourselves to the frontier and ask ourselves, what can we do? So we're going to have two scenarios and we're going to discuss them in detail for the next 10 minutes or so. Okay, so it's going to be a bit technical, but I'll just run through some key points. So the four surprise features as a highlighter earlier, solar, regional power grids, low carbon alternative, and natural gas. These again are assumptions they were making. These again are actually things that we so-called propose by the government. So in a benchmark scenario, which is called a mitigation scenario, we're going to increase our solar energy deployment by 5-4. So the idea is to increase by at least two global warming potential by 20-30. But let's push ourselves a bit more if we can actually do it by 5-4. Why don't we do it to 8.6 in that sense? So in the sense, what we have is we have the high-ambition pathway allowing us to actually do a lot more in the sense. For regional power grids, we can have 100 megawatts of hydroelectric power. So currently, we're already importing from Laos. So we can do a lot more as well. Now, in terms of the low carbon alternatives, at this point in time, this carbon capture storage has been implemented, but it's quite limited because it needs space, it's costly as well. So this is what we have mapped out so far in terms of this amount of carbon capture. So hydrogen, waste of energy, and so forth. So this is the benchmark ideas that we have based on our switches. So in comparison, we thought, why don't we do some green ammonia, geothermal, nuclear even, for this so-called high-ambition pathway? And let's compare them side to side to see if we go to our plan and we push ourselves a bit more for the high-ambition. What can we do? So this is what we're going to go through. And of course, in economies, we need to set things constant for demand side in the sense. So we're going to set the demand assumptions based on what we are currently doing in both cases. First of all, we're going to have smart LED lightings, we're going to enhance minimum energy performance, carbon tax are being implemented. So this is a policy set in place already. So in Singapore right now, we have $5 carbon tax. We're going to increase progressively to $25 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2024 and 2025. So as highlighted earlier, we're going to electrify our bus feed. We are going to have no new diesel cars and taxi registrations. So all these things you see in our previous big picture of a Singapore green plant, we try to map them nicely into the demand channel for this particular so-called presentation. So again, to qualify again, there's a lot of things going on. There's too much levers going on. So setting is constant. So we're going to focus on this primary so-called demand channel to see what we can do. We're going to ask ourselves, can we do even more or not? That's what we're trying to push ourselves. Okay, so in what follows for the next five slides or so, I'm going to just share you a lot of graphs. Now, so the graphs, it's always going to have two so-called graphs. The left panel is called a mitigation scenario. And the right panel is called a high-ambition pathway. So to make sure we are doing a fair comparison, satirized parabolas, right? Between the two situations, we first look at the energy consumption by sector. Okay, so it looks fairly similar in both cases. So this is a layer of concerns that our results are driven by the demand channel. So in both situations, it's fairly constant. The graph are same. That's fine. Okay, now let's now zoom in on what we are more keen to find out more for this discussion. So first, we have the electricity generation by source. So let's just turn our eyes to the one in red. Okay, so the one in red is the share of natural gas. So at this point in time, it's a small work called historical and the scenario in 2022. So basically the left side of each graph, the red section is overwhelming rate. In summary, it means that Singapore is focusing a lot of natural gas. So over time, based on the policies implementations, okay, you realize that the share of natural gas is poised to decrease. In other words, we are reducing the dependence of our natural gas. So over time, you see that the natural gas dependency will reduce across time and the imports will play a bigger role. Now, so however, in the high ambitions pathway, you realize that the share imports is increasing. And at the same time, imported electricity could even overtake natural gas as a dominant source in 2047. So if you would want to totally eradicate the use of so-called natural gas, in a way, the high ambition pathway could be something to look forward to. But having said that, in the mitigation scenario, you see that importers are already playing a very important role already. So as far as your concern, you can see that the importance of regional cooperation and the importance of these so-called imports is pivotal in both situations. So while natural gas remains the dominant fuel throughout the years, there could also be increased waste of energy, hydrogen, and solar PV as well. So this point, we are going forward towards and this can be seen nicely based on our projections, based on the software that all of us are using for this particular project. So we find it consistent and robust to what we are believing and what we can see in terms of these predictions accordingly. And we'll be happy to discuss more even to see how it can be actually utilize better usage of all our resources even more. Okay, now next. So this is just a snapshot. Okay, in case you cannot see here, a snapshot in a pie chart. So in 2016, most of us, members of both of us, will we still be around? But our next generation will definitely still be around. So this will swap what they face. So basically, you realize that imported electricity still plays a very important role and Singapore can expect to have a more diversified renewable portfolio which consists of hydrogen and solar PV. Now, hydrogen and solar PV in a sense, so you can see the technology actually drives the entire process as well as this regional cooperation. Okay, next. So next, I'm going to talk about the share of installed generation capacity by technology. Now, so in this context, what we can see is that we are cognizant of this so-called capacity that we have. So in a mitigation scenario, you can realize that we're going to increase this generation capacity and stabilize at 19 to eight megawatts. Okay, so basically, the idea is that it does not mean that we just rely on so-called natural gas or rely on other so-called products, our economy cannot grow. Thank you so much. Five minutes left. Thank you. Now, so it does not mean that our economy cannot grow. In fact, it can even grow even more to a certain extent. So from what we see and what we project, if we use this mitigation scenario and high-ambition pathway, we realize that our capacity can increase even more. And this is something that we should be very concerned of. Sorry, we should be very happy of, for example, an earlier concerns that this will not take place. So for this absolute emissions in power sector by fewer.  Okay, you'll see that we'll expect these emissions to decrease. So our greenhouse gas emissions expect to increase and subsequently decrease with the high-ambition pathway decreasing at a faster rate. So basically, if you push yourself even more, we can expect to enjoy the fruits of these so-called afforded emissions if you push yourself to this high-ambition pathway. Similarly, from this emissions intensity from all sectors. Now, so for this emissions intensity is talking about the pollution created per unit GDP. So basically, afforded emissions intensity will suggest that less pollution is being created per unit GDP. So in both cases, we are heartened to see that in both simulations. So-called, this will go down. But of course, this is a high-ambition pathway will decrease at a faster rate. But we are quite happy to see that this intensity will fall. All right, and this is the absolute emissions from all sectors. Okay, so I think I'm out of time. So what I'm going to conclude is as follows. So based on the past few months that our team has worked on in this project, we are happy to see that the highly ambitious power sector policies modern and shared earlier has shown some promise in reducing absolute greenhouse gas emissions from a power generation sector. However, we acknowledge the challenges that we face. The trilemma is one that keep us going because we cannot be overly dependent on one particular energy source. At the same time, we cannot so-called avoid this so-called cost involved as well. So this means that the future technology could be a game changer in that sense. So for example, the cost of green fuel production like hydrogen, which are very expensive now, which we do not really consider extensively for this analysis, could play a very important role. So hydrogen, for example, carbon capture is there, but now they're going to liquefy the carbon capture in a sense. So Singapore has got enough space, for example, and we do have a and a sort of petrochemical industry is quite huge in Singapore too. So how do you transit to a so-called and particulate sector? That's a very important channel for us too. And finally, I'd like to say that while we are only focusing on the so-called supply channel in terms of this carbon generation through the power plant, we will need to focus a lot more on the demand channel too. Because ultimately, how it can make agents behave matters as hard as that by a previous speaker, as well as the sessions in the earlier day. No, human beings are all responsive to price changes in a sense. For example, there's already SAF available now, Sustainable Evasion Fuel available. But most of us will travel from our home countries right now. So how much are we willing to pay extra to have the SAF fuel in the sense? So it's the action that matters. So even though technology is available already, how we behave and respond to these economic agents, this will actually play a very important role in the modelling. So with that, I think I'll conclude my presentation and thank you very much for having us. Appreciate it. Thank you, Dr Chua. And next is the presentation from Vietnam about the decarbonising the power sector in Vietnam from Professor Vo Son Vinh. Professor Vo is the Dean of the Institute of Business Research, University of Economics, Ho Chi Minh City. And Professor Vo serves different academic roles. He is a member of the scientific committee in economics for the Vietnam Na Vo Stat, which is the national foundation for science and technology development. He is also an editorial board member for several international reputable scientific journals. He used to be a teaching staff at the University of Western Sydney and the University of New South Wales Australia. And he currently serves at the board of directors for the Asian Finance Association and the Asian Law and Economic Association. May I invite you to the stage, please, Professor? Thank you very much, Zhang, for the introduction. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. It's an honour for me today to speak about Vietnam power decarbonisation in the Asian workshop on science and technology development. I'm here to represent the work of a team at UAHED University. We have our Vice President, Dr Ding Cong Khai, here today and Associate Professor Tien Dang Khoi and the team at UAHED and other universities in Vietnam. I'm sure that we are that recently joined at the 8N and in the process of organizing at the 8N Vietnam through the help of Professor Wing Wu and Professor Vien Rue today for the establishing at the 8N Vietnam. And we are lucky that recently, in about two months, so our talk today will not be much on the live modelling, but I would like to take the opportunity to give a big insight on the current situation in Vietnam power sector and watch challenge that Vietnam power sector and the strategy to overcome in order to achieve the net zero carbonisation by 2015 at Vietnam Agree and Committed at COP26 in 2021. Vietnam also served at interacting case study for power sector decarbonisation in order to achieve the net zero carbonisation by 2050. The carbon power sector has to decarbonize significantly in order to achieve that goal. Carbon emission severely impacts Vietnam. The World Bank had ranked it at one of the five countries most likely to be affected by climate change at rising sea level and extreme heat put the area along with 2,000 or 3,200 kilometers beautiful coast at risk. Already we are seeing the impact on Vietnam economy according to the World Bank initial calculation. Climate change related cost in Vietnam GDP by 3.2% GDP in 2020. And when projecting to 2050, it predict a reduction of 12% to 14.5% of its GDP, which is significant amount. Lastly, this increase had come from the country escalating dependent on coal. Currently, coal make up about half of the Vietnam energy portfolio, which is very, very significant. With hydro power comprising around 30%, followed by natural gas, 14% and non-hydropower renewable, 5%. Overall, Vietnam used a huge amount of coal in 2021 and increased from 38 million tons in 2015. But Vietnam relying on coal that supply and demand problem resulting from its significant economic growth and the increased energy consumption necessary to fuel and maintain that growth. Vietnam reached 504 when Vietnam embossed on especially when Vietnam embossed on the significant and fabulous that enter into market oriented economic reform in 1986. The result was significant. In 1985, Vietnam GDP is on around 15 billion. By 2021, it increased to about 400 billion US dollar. So that the increase in the energy and the increase in coal consumption in order to produce, to maintain and fuel economic growth with it understandable. Recently, Vietnam had emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic with continued strong economic growth and notable investment in its manufacturing sector. At the result, Vietnam Ministry of Industry and Trade estimated that the energy demand would increase annually by 8% in tandem with the expected economic growth until 2030. So that the energy consumption is going in parallel with the economic growth. Over the past two decades, reform and change related to power market deregulation had become a common place in the over the world and Vietnam also significantly improved the energy market and significantly restructuring the electricity market. In a world of current uncertain situation generated major change, such as zero COVID policy in China, political conflict in Europe, inflation accelerated in most countries in the world and monetary tightening in some countries.  Recently, Vietnam also import from electricity from Laos and China, but we also had agreement export electricity to Singapore starting from 2030. That is another challenging for Vietnam in order to reduce carbon to make the commitment in 2015 by the Vietnam government. Further, in order to reduce that, not only Vietnam can help to improve the energy market in order to reduce a lot of issues that we have to do. First, we have to ramping up the solar and wind power penetration. We have to reform the electricity market and it attracts foreign investment. In order to attract foreign investment in zero carbon energy shortage, Vietnamese government have to do a lot of things to undertake serious and significant reform. This is because Vietnam currently reliant too much on coal, I mentioned previously, 50% of the Vietnam energy sector is on portfolio is coal. The EU, a trading partner of Vietnam, plan to implement the world-first carbon border adjustment mechanism from October 2023. During the transition period, the scheme will require importer, which Vietnam is a major importer to EU to report embedded carbon in the imported goods. From 2026, additional taxes will be levied on imported goods to bridge the gap between the EU carbon price and the price in exporting countries. In Vietnam, the economy is lying on export. So this is another challenge and also this is the stimulus for Vietnam to restructure its energy sector towards a more power sector decarbonisation. The preparation for the carbon border adjustment mechanism is therefore important and significant for Vietnam and in order to achieve that and to expand its export to fully react to the potential benefit of the trade agreement with the EU, Vietnam will need to mitigate the adverse impact through this scheme. This can only be achieved by reducing emission intensity of Vietnam export product. So as I'm talking here today, Ho Chi Minh City is the first, it's just launching the first scheme in Vietnam in order to apply the tariff for carbon tax and carbon pricing in a trier, in a high water launching in Ho Chi Minh City, among the first in Vietnam, city in Vietnam attempt to apply that scheme in order to reduce carbon and hopefully this will help to mitigate the risk and improve or prepare Vietnam more further radish at an exporting partner for EU. At the sector, that Vietnam sector that producing goods and services for the exporting to EU consume a very large amount of electricity, decarbonising the electricity sector will significantly contribute to the emission reduction in this sector. Fortunately, Vietnam had massive potential to harness the solar and wind energy to facilitate electricity decarbonisation. Estimated by the EVN Vietnam, the combined potential of solar and wind power is about 46, about 50 times higher than the country installed capacity by now. So actually that the potential for solar and renewable energy is about 50 percent higher than the current capacity, which is a good news and a good thing for Vietnam. Therefore, in the near future, Vietnam could focus on ramping up, increasing solar and wind power penetration and other things that I do not like to talk into detail because it is more on technical side, focusing on upgrading the current grid system in Vietnam is also another way, another strategy to improve the current situation and to ramp up or to increase the uptake for the solar and wind output. Due to the current issue in the limited grid capacity, this will be an area that we will look into that issue in the very near future. When we have enough data, as I mentioned that because we joined the project very recently that we do not have, we are still in the process of collecting data for the modelling. So that might talk that focusing a bit on the current issue and the current situation for the Vietnam power sector, but luckily we have potential indicated to sum up that it is a key takeaway that it is estimated that renewable energy that we can, it is about 50 times the current install capacity at the moment. That is the key thing that we think and we are confident that we can keep and make the commitment by COP26 by 2050 that Vietnam will keep to maintain the zero carbon in the country. And also another good thing is that Vietnam, even though the current portfolio of energy sector in Vietnam is around 50% reliant on coal, but we can see that the increasing from 30% to significantly increase, it is expected to be increased in the other type of energy shortage and it is expected that Vietnam can make it. And more important thing is that Vietnam has a good will from the top down, from the government to the different organisations and the university level. Like in Vietnam, the Vietnam has a national power development master plan currently and the national strategy on climate change with the ambition aim to reduce the carbon emission by to 0%. And that just change and that willing need to change, it happen everywhere. Even like at the University, at the university level, we are also aiming to becoming a sustainable university and you know, sustainable development is one of our university important strategy that in recent recognition that we are arranged at around 300 plus in the system ranking. So together I think that we can do it. As I mentioned that first of all, I would like to take the opportunity to thank the 88N for allowing us to become like 88N and hold 88N Vietnam and we expect that in the near future we can continue to build more, third world sustainable development globally. Thank you very much everyone. Thank you very much Professor Vo. You mentioned something about sustainable university, I just want to use one minute of advertisement about one of our flagship product as well together with SDSN, Climate Work Center, Monash University and SDSN co-author a guideline called Net Zero University which show how university worldwide all together can contribute to the global net zero emission and net zero effort. So if you are interested, you can Google Net Zero University guideline by UN SDSN and Climate Work and Monash University to for reference and I would like to invite all the panelists to go on stage and then we can start the Q&A session please. Thank you. All right I think I'll take maybe I'll open to the audience for Q&A. Maybe I'll take two questions one at a time. Anyone have any questions for our panelists? Please raise your hand. Yes please. And before you ask the question which you might introduce in yourself as well. Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm Lal Chan. I can say as a member of the Institute of Engineers Malaysia and fellow of the Academy of Sciences Malaysia it was very interesting to hear your presentations following on from this morning. I have a few questions or comments. In the Philippines do you consider your geothermal as renewable or clean energy? Because geothermal is technically depleting energy. So do you consider that as part of your renewable energy share? Okay. I also think that you are probably too modest in saying that unconditional savings will be as low as 2.71% because unconditional energy saving can be very effective and significant in many ways. For example, star rating of consumer appliances, energy efficient chillers, conditioning, installation of cool buildings and so on. I think Singapore is a very good example of that for cool buildings as well as net zero energy buildings. Now in Malaysia we have had a lot of activities on this saving energy, save programs where the government promote five-star and recently even four-star air-conditioned refrigerators with grants. That's relatively cheap and easy to implement as well as to get buy-in from the public. And when the public realize the savings they can make it is likely to go much, much more. The other thing that I have where maybe I'm a bit biased is consideration of hydrogen for power generation. Now using hydrogen if it comes from fossil fuels for power generation is actually a brainless idea because then it is still fossil fuels. But if you want to take hydrogen, green hydrogen from using surplus renewable energy, which countries have surplus renewable energy? Even UK, Germany, Denmark have surplus renewable energy only for few hours a day on low demand days like weekends and public holidays. And not many other countries can claim to have enough surplus energy to generate hydrogen. And the round trip efficiency of generating hydrogen from electrolysis and using it to regenerate electricity is only about 30 percent, which is a criminal waste of energy. At the recent seminar between the University Technology Petronas Malaysia and APEC that was held at the end of May, it was the paving the way towards hydrogen for the future. And the international speakers confirmed the situation that green hydrogen is too expensive to be used for power generation if you're going on this kind of free round trip cycle. And it is not likely to be economically viable before about 2030. Now of course Malaysia, Sarawak has done its promotion for a green hydrogen up but talk of CCU to get blue hydrogen. Carbon capture and storage sequestration is very expensive and not viable. CCUS is viable in niche applications, for example the oil and gas or chemical industries. And what is more important is that at this seminar it was indicated that I think in 2020, 2021, out of about 90 million tons of hydrogen produced, less than 10 percent was used for the power usage whereas over 90 percent was for other uses like fertilizers, chemical industries and refining of ores. So I think the current apparent hype of using hydrogen for power generation or green hydrogen for power generation is really not very wise option even though politicians seem to be going for it in Malaysia. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for your valuable comments. I think on the point on geothermal and unconditional targets, Professor Abernika, would you like to respond to that? Thank you very much for the comments. I'd just like to say that the reason we were not, we didn't consider hydrogen, we didn't consider CCUS, we didn't consider all those seemingly technologies that would actually do the mitigation that we want to achieve is because we want a plan that our leaders could buy in and the public could buy in and so we know that we will get into this all sort of debate whether it is cost viable to go into these technologies and in the end nobody will mind the plan that we come up with and that is why that is why we have results that mitigate or reduce emission not as much as we have committed as a country because we only considered technologies that currently we have some indication from the private sector that they would like to invest in or are thinking of investing in. Those are the only technologies that we considered. Having said that, technologies change, sir, and I so we're looking at 2060 and not 2030 so maybe maybe if we are to consider those technologies it would have to be somewhere down the road I mean 2040, 2050 when these technologies are ripe enough for the market but at this point we have not considered them. In the next iteration maybe we could do that. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Yeah, sure. Yeah, yeah, I also went up an experience from Vietnam where that hydropower is comprising around 30% of the energy sources, energy portfolio but the reliance on this hydropower but also cost some significant problem. A relocation of the people and the fluctuation in the output is also another issue but luckily in Vietnam as I mentioned in my speech that we have the ability to enter the renewable energy, wind and solar with the estimated capacity can be around 50% of the current capacity. Thank you Professor Vo. Dr. Chua, Yuhi, I think if I'm correct Singapore also have a hydrogen strategy right or do you would you like to have any comment about hydrogen as a technology in Singapore? I think at this point in time we're still exploring so I don't have much to say at this point yeah for this but we're definitely shifting away towards a real natural gas so we are importing we're finding we're diversifying so-called our so-called energy imports and hydrogen is one of them that we could possibly exploit in the future but right now we are using no solar PVs we are importing so we're trying to diversify because as I mentioned earlier Singapore's a trilemma in terms of trying to certain our own energy needs and so forth yeah so thank you so before opening the another question I'm just really want to unblock a little bit Dr. Chua because this is very interesting I would like to discover more Dr. Chua because from my understanding most of the South Asian countries the transition are quite state-led whereas I think Philippines is the only one and it has been highlighted several times in your speech and your Q&A that it's a private led but then from the experience around the world the state plays a very important role in terms of providing like investment in science innovation in technology and setting up the policy certainty so that private sector can invest in so how would private sector in Philippines would be able to sort of be confident to invest without a sort of long-term certain policy for renewable I just very interested to understand well actually okay they say that there are lots of projects in the Philippines that are worth investing into but so there goes the question why why aren't we getting the investment unlike Vietnam and the answer is I think very complicated a lot of it has to do with uncertainty policy policy uncertainty or even actions certain actions of the government but nonetheless you see the problem if you have coal plants that are owned by the private sector and you want to retire them so that you know you have cleaner air so how do you do that if it were owned by the government then yes the government could just decide to shut it down but if it were owned by the private sector then they have to be compensated so the next question is where do you get the money to compensate them and hence this idea that that private sector is floating around that we should be getting assistance from multilateral agencies or raising funds from donors who understand the value of the environment etc but it's not not that easy I mean the decision of coming up with cleaner fuel would have even for example sorry for taking answering too long even for example this no coal no coal no new coal policy the coal moratorium now it's it's a very debatable is a policy or there's a policy that went to several debates and in the end the government has to give in to the fact that some potential investors have already acquired PSAs and and so they could not they have to exempt them so that's the problem if it were the government building the power plants then yeah the decision not to build new coal plants would be easier yeah but this is not to say that I'd rather go back to a situation where all our power plants were owned by the government because we had a terrible power crisis in the 1990s it's all because of government inefficiency so I'd rather have it in the hands of the private sector still but again the decision's not going to be easy thank you thank you Dr Joy can I open the floor to another question please anyone have another question please raise your hand okay my name is Yuan Yu Professor Joy I didn't quite catch why the RE ratio kept going down even though you said the merit order for RE is high up there that's question number one question number two is that I see that you put decommissioning coal power plants that are 40 years or 50 years old as scenarios I'm curious under in under usual circumstances what do the what does the Philippines do with coal power plants that's 40 and 50 years old do they keep running please go ahead the the power plants are just rehabilitated so you don't see you don't see that considered in the plan of the government either in the existing policy reference scenario or clean energy scenario the it is not assumed that those plans will will suddenly be decommissioned if they get owned yes they are rehabilitated because it's privately owned so in fact the plans that were formerly owned by the government and and then privatized were rehabilitated and so that extended the life of now about the question on why is it that RE share is going down okay even if it is in the in the current model it's still not an optimization model that we have we're still need to learn the optimization part of leave but but we have placed the solar and other renewables on priority dispatch so high on the merit order high on the endogenous capacity investments that's because we suspect that the variability of RE okay you need plants to take you need plans to take to fill up that that variability to compensate for that variability and as a result the LNG the natural gas share is increasing so that fills up the that fills up the void that caused by the variability in RE thank you please the lady behind there as well hello my name is Christina and this is with regards to the Philippines again sorry I'll just I know you said there the plans are owned by the private sector but I was just I was just thinking whether there were also listed entities public listed entities because if if they are is there some sort of guidelines or some kind of policies that the other you know the the the equivalent of the our Bursa here which is a listing requirements would require a listing requirements or guidelines you know for listed companies sort of you know ensures that or make make companies ensure that they do follow certain ESG kind of policies and guidelines or they adopt and implement are there is are there something like that are these companies public listed okay I think you are referring to distribution companies who would have to source their power from RE there's that policy a certain percentage of of of the electricity distributed that the policy is imposed on the distributor to to source their power from RE plants yes there is that policy but but you know it it is monitored and it is but it's not enough to encourage well well it's not enough at this point add on to this private public discussion for example but in Singapore right even though the government set guidelines you know but the public the private sector actually still owns a large proportion of these power generating plants in fact i um these ytl power international it's it's called in Malaysia they actually own the largest amount of generating capacity in Singapore in fact and also the big also we have this so-called japanese consortium firms you know like own this sonoco energy private limited so I don't think that this dichotomy between the public versus private so if this so as long as you know private sectors are efficient enough to and also in live-regarding objectives they have a women's situation in that sense so I think it works in the sense yeah I think that is a very interesting issue and Vietnam is different whether electricity market is dominated by the state even though it have some yeah it can don't have problem with the investment and all that thing but it will have problem with the pricing the electricity efficiently that is um that that that like we we recently experienced the electricity city shortage in in Vietnam which is causing a lot of issue at the moment why the Vietnam economy grow is fewer by the energy sector it's just too sigh of the story yeah and can can I follow up on that as well so um so the the Vietnam Electric City EVN also has quite a lot of as I read it um issue related financial situation as well when it comes to their debt and also how they get invested would you like to comment around that as well all right thank you that interacting issue but from the you know from the an economic point of view let that on that I think that the financial issue of the the source and electricity electricity player in the Vietnam market I think that the pricing problem like where they have a lot of investment everywhere and that investment is the price of the electricity normally formulated by cost but when the the firm that the only firm they invest not only in electricity thing but also like they in the hotel in the real estate in the banking sectors and if they lot of debt and they cannot increase in the price of the electricity electricity because it's regulated by the the government that cost the issue I think okay thank you um maybe I open the floor to another question anyone has any further question yes please um the good afternoon my name is shaker this question is addressed to any or all of the panelists um and it's a question that's uh touches on the topic of benefit versus cost of some of the renewable energy sources like wind um and solar for example and there are others which are I guess emerging as well there appears to be a view you know that some of the projections around benefit versus cost of some of these technologies are over optimistic that the cost of actual um manufacture and creation of these sources of energy and the quantity or the capacity of these energy sources that would be required to match those of conventional energy are quite substantial and the current projections on the efficiency or the benefit versus the cost could sometimes be a little bit over optimistic and therefore painting an over optimistic picture of how um beneficial or to what extent these energies can replace conventional coal and oil and gas and so on so I was interested to understand what's your view or what's your take on that perception that I think is is quite a um you know a wide perception amongst various commentators out there you know in the marketplace acknowledging the fact that some of these energy sources will increase in efficiency over time no doubt but based on what we have today and the various projections that have been made how does that correspond you know to your understanding of the benefit versus cost thank you that's a very interesting question and I guess the answer might also vary quite different from different places because um depending on the context and the level of the economy that might impact on the benefit and the cost of um balance as well so maybe I start from my right hand side first and then we um continue with other speakers um dr chua would you like to comment yeah thank you very much for the question it's a very important question definitely talk about cost benefit analysis for this renewable energy so from our perspective especially as a price taker in Singapore because we import more of our raw materials in that sense so we get to shop around correct so in terms of the most efficient kind of resources available I think competition plays an important role here because if it's monopolized for example by one particular sector for example yes they could be inefficient and so forth but if there's more opportunities available to the region in that sense if there's more places you know giving us this um the the private sector be very incentivized to actually utilize this with this so-called available resources that we have so far so with more competition with more opportunities being given so we believe that this inefficiency will be driven down in the sense if we can actually tap on these opportunities and with more competition I think this could actually be a lane a long run in the sense in short it's actually um often raised in for where you were you have on one side saying that okay you you are selling the idea of renewables but you are not considering the impact of uh that on electricity prices especially in the Philippines as which I mentioned has a very high price of electricity but then again uh as as maybe as economists or bad way of saying it but anyway as as a citizen okay as a person who who would who would not just a private citizen was not just looking at the financial the immediate return to to the investor I would be also looking at the other benefits and the other costs that are not financial or not immediately realizable and so in the end maybe those would balance out and currently you need the government to say indeed if you consider the social cost etc the externalities etc then renewable would be a viable viable option and something that worth investing into but it's not an easy sell because if you live in a country where electricity prices are high it's kind of difficult to sell that to the public but yeah I tend to agree with the important that the speaker that um yeah in the in the very near future that there's a prior and the investment will be efficient in solar and wind uh energy sector I believe even though at a certain moment there's some difficulty in that because it had to compete with the traditional energy source like core as we have the information from this morning section that like core is still there to in the in the very near future something like that due to the the cost issue but I think that in the very near future that will that will be you know like the with the development of technology that we and solar energy will be one of the alternatives very soon if I may just add part of the question related and I think cost part of my question related to cost in terms of cost of natural resources cost of raw materials to actually manufacture the machinery that produces this type of electricity solar panels you know winter vines and so on so the question was was meant to also address that part of the equation and I talked about cost versus benefit and that's that's that's a subject that's not often talked about we talked about the need of mining precious metals and so on that are required to produce the machinery that actually generate renewable energy so I was hoping you because of that little bit so you mean the cost of the technology itself or the cost of to deploy the technology is both yeah yeah yeah because because as I read it the cost for the technology itself or renewable actually reduced significantly in the last couple of years and in some countries it's it's quite actually very cheap but the cost to deploy the technologies in some countries that it's especially if it compares between develop and developing countries there is significant gaps between those costs because sometimes there is things like added up by perceived risks of investing in emerging markets or the uncertainties of policies etc etc so yeah so I guess there are two types of cost when it comes and you mean both would you like to comment then you yeah sure so let me add one component let's say fixed costs for example to talk about the case cost story so for example I've shared in my slides earlier Singapore wish to have a vehicle fleet without any um ice without internal combustion what we're going to experience is that we're going to EVs so imagine in the EVs electric vehicles world what do we need we need chargers correct we need to charge so it's the off sunk cost for example which we do not see so we need two things right now this is what I see for example we need scale because if you have a lot of EVs everywhere the cost goes down because of number two this is all fixed costs if you have charges everywhere for example this would release a cost involved for these sectors so if a lot of these are all fixed costs or sunk costs in that sense as an economist we think marginally marginal thinking so the additional costs would not be that significant in that sense in a way so what we need now is a big push that's what we're here for okay to push everything forward to push it such that you know you allow this so-called huge cost be it mental be it physical be it charger for example to so-called move into a new cycle to the new optimal solution okay so we're going to move to new equilibrium such that the cost now will be now be lower even than before because everything from the electric vehicle charging point of view so it's very hard to imagine a city in fact Singapore hopes to be one okay to be one with that which is less reliant on these fossil fuels for vehicles on the road so personally I do not drive an EV yet but some of my colleagues are shitting towards in fact below my office if you come to NTU we have an EV charger right next to our office in fact okay so it's a hinting to us it's time per se to change to an EV charging machine over here so ultimately we think the mindset changed and if you think of margin thinking once the fixed cost is being sunk in we can move and transit to a new equilibrium in that sense yeah thank you for highlighting the what you are talking about is carbon accounting because here we want to reduce carbon hence we rightly should track the carbon cost of things right from the mines to the cars that we are driving and you are right that this is something that is not done frequently enough and some it is something that we should work on and we hope to be able to give that picture to to solutions to solutions in the near future in terms of the cost of renewable energy I think the cost of solar photovoltaic LCOE is cheaper even than coal when it was $85 per ton so now it is even much more cheap and about 17 years ago when I was with the MBIPV team we evaluated that the emission recovery cost or emission cover cost for photovoltaics was about two and a half years that means whatever emissions goes into its production are recovered within two and a half years of its operation now that figure is probably less than two years in terms of wind energy Vietnam is lucky to have wind but along the tropical zone there is really no wind and if I may follow on this EVs I wonder if anybody can convince me why are countries going for EVs when hybrids have a higher emission reduction factor than EVs when your electricity is predominantly from fossil fuels for example in panacea Malaysia about 90% of electricity comes from gas and coal so your EV is not going to reduce emissions except marginally but if you have a hybrid which has a much more efficient utilization the emission reduction is much faster so we should go for hybrids the mild hybrids have fast emission reductions so by the time those hybrids have passed their age 10 12 or 15 years EVs will be more attractive and electricity will be more from renewable energy rather than fossil fuels I can't get anybody to convince me that this question of emission reductions and EVs makes any sense except for political and economic perspectives in terms of the industry development thank you and if you would like to comment about EV as a solution okay I'll comment briefly on EV okay since I brought it up so now so basically for the assumption because right now the assumption right now is that we are still relying on so-called fossil fuels generate electricity but so now what we're going to do is we're going to plan hand in hand together to convert into renewable energy and use EV at the same time so I do not think we could we should treat electricity as separate issue so we're going to do them simultaneously to transit moreover it's not easy to transit to EV because as I mentioned earlier we have this fixed cost some cost mindset shift personally I'm not shifting yet so so what's going to happen is that we're going to shift towards 10 years or 20 years time exactly what you pointed out in 10 20 years time we're going to be in a women situation where most of us have EVs and so-called renewable energy so we're going to transit towards a new equilibrium whereby we're going to have so-called renewable energy to generate our power plants that's what we are targeting towards and I think we will achieve it thank you may we only have five minutes left may I take the last question from there and then I have to conclude this strictly for team thank you thank you so I it seems that we have a dilemma the problem is whether we want to commit to the environment to the earth or we want to commit to economic money so at some point we need to decide which one is more important we want to it's like in during covid time we can come up together with a solution come up with a vaccine that will that is possible its situation is similar we want to survive or or not we want to survive maybe we have to sacrifice the economic the business aspect come together and come up with a viable solution even though it may be a bit more expensive we have to pay more but if together I think we will make it cheaper just like we come up with a covid vaccine something like that do you think that is possible to find a collectively find a viable solution not not just for business financial gain but for the for the earth for the sustainability to avoid further damage to the environment yeah thank you so you mean that we shouldn't act as business as usual anymore and we should treat it as a crisis and everyone should act upon it rather than trying to think about it as as nothing happens at the moment thank you um I think any of you would you like to comment on that yeah what I think that it's very interesting issue that what we should act and what we should go from here and yeah and I from the first part I tend to agree with you that we have to trade off in between that but previous but but the when it had been increasing recently and I think that a lot of strategy a lot of a lot of plan had been in store it had been developed to deal with the deep that you use the word dilemma that we are fishing like carbon pricing is an example how to to balance out in your thing that I think that what I I believe that in the very near future that will be you know not not a not a big problem and not going not to be a dilemma that you use anymore I just want to say that maybe it's even easier to convince those in the margins those in the margins the marginal groups the importance of investing because when a typhoon a disastrous one hits the country they're the most affected and they have the least resources to survive that the disaster it's even more difficult to convince that or to say that to a congressman who's thinking of of you know the relationship that they have to maintain with the business groups currently invested in fossil-based power plants so so in the end you know you have to consider all this and and and you should not you should not beat development against environment competitiveness against yeah and those things so yeah so but but as I said more and more the poor are this consciousness on environment is becoming something is something that the poor people in the Philippines are are beginning to take in or imbibe because they suffer the most and they get very little help from the government once their livelihood their houses are are destroyed by climate would you like to comment something before that I really want to recognize that I really interested in one of your when you mentioned and this quite linked to your comment as well when you in your model you also measure the pollution per unit per unit of GDP as well which which is a very interesting thing that have been taken been done because a lot of South Asian countries are or cities are actually um one of among sadly among the most polluted cities globally and suffer quite a lot on from from this um yeah would you like to comment yeah sure I'll comment on this question together so basically right um probably to be filled there's no so-called um dichotomy in fact between economic growth and sustainability in fact there's a lot of opportunities that's being available because with green finance coming into play for example we're trying to have this kind of training of climate to track scope one scope two scope three emissions so it's our opportunities and we have countries for example like Laos for example exporting these powers to work as the ASEAN for example there's a lot of opportunities available but the challenging part is this transition is being involved how do we transit okay without hurting those that is more vulnerable to our society because some of the whenever there's change there's always going to be winners and losers so how can we help the losers to transit to better equilibrium than before I feel this is a key challenge that we have so in a green economy I do foresee a women's situation whereby the economy is striving even better than before and also an economy that is green and you can sustainable for our future generations so but it's just a transition that we are in today that makes it very difficult to help these winners and losers and now to add on to the point of how do we measure and quantify this so-called cost per GDP for example so so because this if you use more renewable energy they will increase the capacity the potential and in this sense over here we are able to measure our economic growth to grow and because of this opportunities available to this growth they can go hand in hand in the sense so the cost per GDP in our simulations that we simulated we should be happy to discuss as the thing as well is that as long as the cost goes down in a way in a way as women's situation for everyone so I think this is something we should work towards and I think we can work towards it yeah thank you thank you I think the answers and the questions and the comment by one of the participants over there it's I think it's nicely conclude our session today I would like to thank you all the panelists for your speech but also a very interactive session and thank you all the participant for your very insightful interesting questions and comments and thank you very much I would like to remind you that the next session is in GC1 and there is a plenary session that will start at 4.30 and please Kylie and to enter the hole through the side holes thank you very much and thank you everyone