WEBVTT X-TIMESTAMP-MAP=LOCAL:00:00:00.000,MPEGTS:0 00:00.000 --> 00:03.120 Unknown: noon from London and I know we have people joining us 00:03.120 --> 00:06.450 from all around the world. So good morning, or good evening 00:06.450 --> 00:09.600 depending on where you are joining us from today. Welcome 00:09.600 --> 00:13.110 to this webinar on shaping public investments for the net 00:13.110 --> 00:17.310 zero world. I'm Siobhan Benita, I'm a former UK senior civil 00:17.310 --> 00:20.880 servants. And it's my pleasure to be chairing this webinar on 00:20.880 --> 00:24.150 behalf of global government forum and our knowledge partner 00:24.150 --> 00:29.430 today, Deloitte. Now in terms of today's topic, even before the 00:29.430 --> 00:32.430 pandemic, governments around the world were rethinking their 00:32.430 --> 00:36.990 plans for public investment in order to meet evolving social, 00:37.020 --> 00:41.640 economic, and environmental priorities. And now as the world 00:41.640 --> 00:46.650 slowly emerges from COVID-19, with economy seriously impacted 00:46.650 --> 00:50.430 by the last two years, and at the same time with even more 00:50.430 --> 00:55.320 focus on the reduction of carbon emission targets, post cop 26. 00:55.680 --> 01:00.540 This agenda is being revisited again. In this webinar, we'll 01:00.540 --> 01:04.560 discuss the factors shaping decisions on public investment, 01:04.770 --> 01:08.340 and how civil servants working with the private sector as well 01:08.610 --> 01:12.750 can really best equip themselves for the challenges to come and 01:12.750 --> 01:16.980 ensure that wider goals such as the drive to net zero economic 01:16.980 --> 01:21.090 growth, and public wellbeing, are effectively built into the 01:21.090 --> 01:24.990 funding decisions that they make. We have a really great 01:24.990 --> 01:27.570 panel with us here today. And I'll be introducing them in a 01:27.570 --> 01:31.680 moment. And we'll hear from each of those panel members before we 01:31.680 --> 01:35.100 get into our discussion. But they'll also be an opportunity 01:35.100 --> 01:37.980 for you, the audience to put your questions to our great 01:37.980 --> 01:42.480 panel. So whichever device you are using today, you should see 01:42.480 --> 01:46.290 at the bottom of your screens, there's a q&a function. Please 01:46.290 --> 01:50.010 use that q&a function that button to send in your questions 01:50.190 --> 01:53.880 at any point throughout this webinar. From now onwards, it 01:53.880 --> 01:58.440 really is a great opportunity to put your questions to our panel. 01:59.370 --> 02:03.000 So in terms of our panel themselves, first we will hear 02:03.000 --> 02:07.650 from Christiana belly Mineski, who is a senior economist in the 02:07.650 --> 02:11.370 national fiscal frameworks and institutions units in the 02:11.370 --> 02:14.580 European Commission's Directorate General General for 02:14.580 --> 02:20.250 Economic and Financial Affairs, which he joined in 2014. In this 02:20.250 --> 02:24.120 capacity, Christiana carries out policy and analytical work on 02:24.120 --> 02:28.920 public investment management and fiscal rules. Then we will hear 02:28.920 --> 02:32.520 from APEC Jensen, who is a senior research fellow on 02:32.520 --> 02:36.930 climate and sustainability at the ODI APEC has over 10 years 02:36.930 --> 02:40.110 of experience in climate and energy policy with a focus on 02:40.110 --> 02:43.230 sustainable finance, and she currently leads ODI his 02:43.230 --> 02:47.460 programme of work on fossil fuel and energy subsidies, as well as 02:47.460 --> 02:51.300 migration as an opportunity to support low carbon and climate 02:51.300 --> 02:55.860 compatible development as part of the ODI human mobility 02:55.860 --> 03:00.870 initiative. Then we will hear from our knowledge partner panel 03:00.870 --> 03:04.230 member today so we'll hear from Michael Flynn, who is global 03:04.260 --> 03:07.260 infrastructure transport and regional government sector 03:07.260 --> 03:10.770 leader for Deloitte. In this role, he leads a global team 03:10.770 --> 03:13.890 working with public sector organisations on large 03:13.920 --> 03:16.860 investment programmes in infrastructure mobility, 03:16.860 --> 03:21.480 climate, environment, cities, and much more. And then last, 03:21.480 --> 03:25.680 but by no means least, we will hear from Mariano Massaro, who 03:25.680 --> 03:29.370 is a senior economist at the International Monetary Fund. His 03:29.370 --> 03:32.550 work and research focuses on public finance, political 03:32.550 --> 03:36.030 economy, and infrastructure development. He's got a really 03:36.030 --> 03:41.220 interesting CV. So in 2005 2006, he was also Deputy Minister of 03:41.220 --> 03:44.760 Finance of Poland and Chairman of the State Development Bank 03:45.000 --> 03:48.990 BGK. So I'm sure you'll agree with me we have a really stellar 03:48.990 --> 03:51.870 panel with us here today. As I said, please do use this 03:51.870 --> 03:54.990 opportunity to send in your questions. We'll get through as 03:54.990 --> 03:57.690 many of those as we can. Once I've heard we've heard from our 03:57.690 --> 04:01.740 panel. So without further ado, I'm going to ask Christiana to 04:01.740 --> 04:08.910 give us her opening remarks. Christiane, we have to take you 04:08.910 --> 04:09.750 off mute. 04:11.970 --> 04:15.870 So thanks a lot, Cheban twice. It's a real pleasure for me to 04:15.870 --> 04:20.640 be here today, with my fellow panellists and the audience for 04:20.670 --> 04:24.030 what promises to be an interesting discussion. I will 04:24.270 --> 04:31.860 give a few takes on on on the EU perspective to this to this 04:31.860 --> 04:38.460 debate. So if we can move on to the next slide. I will say that 04:38.460 --> 04:43.710 the EU is strongly committed to the green transition. The green 04:43.710 --> 04:49.050 transition is a key priority for the EU. The European Green Deal 04:49.140 --> 04:54.960 set out in 2019 is the policy framework, with many different 04:54.990 --> 05:01.410 ambitions including becoming carbon neutral by 2050. At the 05:01.410 --> 05:05.910 same time, this green transition is going to require a lot of 05:05.910 --> 05:09.210 adjustments. The Commission, the European Commission estimates 05:09.210 --> 05:16.050 that up to 650 billion will be required annually up to 2030, 05:16.410 --> 05:21.750 both for the green and digital transition. Clearly, much of 05:21.750 --> 05:26.520 this funding will be provided by the private sector, but at the 05:26.520 --> 05:32.670 same time, public investment is going to play a key role. And on 05:32.670 --> 05:39.420 that, we can move on to the next slide. So when the COVID crisis 05:39.420 --> 05:44.130 hit in 2020, the European Commission came up with a 05:44.130 --> 05:47.910 recovery a temporary recovery package that is the recovery and 05:47.910 --> 05:51.360 resilience facility. And at the same time, it took this 05:51.360 --> 05:58.260 opportunity to, to further the green ambition by integrating a 05:58.260 --> 06:03.570 green target into the into the recovery and resilient facility. 06:03.570 --> 06:08.400 So how this works is that the plans that the member states 06:08.670 --> 06:13.530 submits with investments and reforms, in order to require 06:13.530 --> 06:19.440 funding have to include a 37% green target. And at the same 06:19.440 --> 06:24.120 time, all these investments and reforms that have the member 06:24.120 --> 06:27.900 states need also to respect the do no significant harm 06:27.900 --> 06:33.540 principle. And what is encouraging is that, based on 06:33.540 --> 06:36.840 the data, the plans that have been submitted so far, which is 06:36.840 --> 06:42.210 most for most member states, it seems that the green target has 06:42.210 --> 06:46.200 been even slightly over achieved. And even more so for 06:46.200 --> 06:53.160 the for the for the digital targets. And so to conclude my 06:53.160 --> 06:57.780 remarks, we're going to the next slide. And in this in this 06:57.780 --> 07:03.270 remarks, I want to say a few words on a number of initiatives 07:03.270 --> 07:06.990 that are taken at the EU level, it's clearly not have all of 07:06.990 --> 07:12.180 them. So this is a selection influenced also by those that I 07:12.180 --> 07:17.910 know best one. So I would start with the green taxonomy. The 07:17.910 --> 07:22.350 European Commission has put forward a classification system 07:22.350 --> 07:25.530 for economic activities in terms of their environmental 07:25.530 --> 07:30.480 sustainability. It was put forward in 2020, and it has 07:30.510 --> 07:36.000 multiple uses. It's also used by the RRF the recovery and 07:36.030 --> 07:41.010 resilience facility, but also quite importantly, it is also 07:41.010 --> 07:46.050 used in the discussion on the green bond standards. There is 07:46.050 --> 07:53.250 also the InVEST EU, which is a programme made meant at 07:53.400 --> 08:00.180 leveraging private investment way to you contingencies with EU 08:00.180 --> 08:04.470 guarantee and all these investments, part of the 08:04.470 --> 08:08.820 investor you need to have climate proofing. So the 08:08.820 --> 08:14.190 investments need to show how they will achieve the climate 08:14.190 --> 08:20.340 targets. Then, coming to work from what I know best, which is 08:20.340 --> 08:24.990 the one that I am in charge of at the European Commission, we 08:24.990 --> 08:30.000 started looking more closely at ways to improve the management 08:30.000 --> 08:34.470 of public investment in the member states given all the you 08:34.470 --> 08:36.780 know, the ramp up in investment that we're talking and are 08:36.780 --> 08:42.450 expecting, so this becomes even more important area. And here we 08:42.450 --> 08:46.140 are working with, especially with the member states but also 08:46.140 --> 08:49.710 with other international organisations to see to find 08:49.710 --> 08:53.190 ways for member states to improve their efficiency. 08:54.750 --> 08:59.550 The last two elements, I would mention some work done by 08:59.550 --> 09:03.630 colleagues with respect to disaster risk management, and 09:04.830 --> 09:09.360 trying to anticipate to make again, EU member states more 09:09.390 --> 09:13.560 aware of the costs that are going to come in relation to 09:13.560 --> 09:18.120 climate mitigation and adaptation. So there we are 09:18.450 --> 09:22.410 looking especially at developing a strategy at the country level 09:22.710 --> 09:27.120 with a special focus on the financing of such such needs. 09:27.510 --> 09:33.690 And finally, I would we do some work with respect to green 09:33.690 --> 09:39.540 budgeting, which relates to using the tools available to 09:39.540 --> 09:44.730 budgetary policymaking that can advance the green agenda at the 09:44.730 --> 09:48.960 level of the budgetary process. And some of those tools include, 09:48.960 --> 09:55.110 for example, tagging the items used in national budgets, into 09:55.110 --> 09:59.310 those that contribute positively or negatively to meeting 09:59.310 --> 10:04.260 environment. to the environment. It can also be about integration 10:04.290 --> 10:09.630 of climate related risk into fiscal policymaking, but also 10:09.630 --> 10:15.990 impact assessments on the invite, so in the environmental 10:15.990 --> 10:20.760 impact assessments, I would stop here and I look forward to the 10:20.760 --> 10:21.570 discussion. 10:22.530 --> 10:25.380 Thanks so much, Christiana, a really nice place to start, I 10:25.380 --> 10:28.380 think because you, I think you've raised some of the issues 10:28.380 --> 10:30.360 that I'm sure other panel members will talk about, and 10:30.360 --> 10:33.660 that the audience will be interested in kind of getting 10:33.690 --> 10:36.720 into more depth on. So in particular, those kinds of the 10:36.720 --> 10:39.060 priorities that maybe were already there, and the kind of 10:39.060 --> 10:42.720 digital transition, the green targets that were there, but 10:42.720 --> 10:46.230 also how the, at the European level, how those are now being 10:46.230 --> 10:49.350 connected to the recovery and resilience, work, post COVID, 10:49.350 --> 10:52.020 making sure that those are linked together. And I think, 10:52.020 --> 10:55.290 again, a really important issue that you've raised there about 10:55.290 --> 11:00.150 how our civil servants start to measure the sustainability of 11:00.150 --> 11:03.840 initiatives, how do they really know how green things are that 11:03.840 --> 11:07.080 they are thinking about investing in so whether that's 11:07.560 --> 11:10.560 kind of working with contractors, or as you say, as 11:10.560 --> 11:12.930 well, looking at their own budgets, as well. So really 11:12.930 --> 11:16.560 interesting about some of the taxonomy and the tagging that 11:16.560 --> 11:19.950 you were talking about there. So really good place to start. And 11:19.950 --> 11:22.290 I'm sure he Peck has some thoughts on some of those 11:22.290 --> 11:26.100 things, not least the risk management and disaster risk as 11:26.100 --> 11:28.590 well. So thank you, Christiana. And over to you eat better, 11:29.790 --> 11:33.690 and so on. How Hello, everyone, it's great to be here with you 11:33.690 --> 11:37.860 today. And, and to be with my fellow panellists, I would like 11:37.860 --> 11:41.310 to take us back one step to think about the science behind 11:41.310 --> 11:45.150 what we're doing. And our climate aims, you know, aiming 11:45.150 --> 11:48.630 for net zero in the second half of the century, that's a very 11:48.630 --> 11:51.900 long way away. And it's fantastic to see more and more 11:51.900 --> 11:54.930 countries, you know, sub nationals, private sector, 11:54.930 --> 11:58.950 financial institutions, starting to take this agenda seriously, 11:59.220 --> 12:02.970 and signing up many of them to net zero commitments in the 12:02.970 --> 12:07.290 second half of the century. But this means actually much early 12:07.290 --> 12:12.600 on by 2030, having our emissions. So if you could point 12:12.600 --> 12:15.510 to the next slide, please, Alexa, you know, what does this 12:15.510 --> 12:19.950 mean, in terms of what we have to do now, over the next few 12:19.950 --> 12:23.190 years, to try to make sure that we stay on the right trajectory. 12:23.220 --> 12:27.300 And this graph, from the climate action tracker shows you that 12:27.330 --> 12:31.710 actually, despite all the great progress so far, we are still 12:31.800 --> 12:34.800 not able to meet our climate commitments. And according to 12:34.800 --> 12:38.700 the Paris Agreement, of course, you know, two degrees, global 12:38.700 --> 12:41.580 warming in comparison to pre industrial levels is the 12:41.580 --> 12:44.460 absolute maximum, we want to limit global warming to that, 12:44.670 --> 12:49.200 but really aspire for 1.5. And this graph, based on the 12:49.200 --> 12:53.640 analysis they've done shows you that current policies are 12:53.670 --> 12:57.810 actually projected to result in about 2.7 degrees warming still, 12:58.380 --> 13:02.280 which is disastrous, and the level of adaptation and risk 13:02.700 --> 13:07.200 that that entails is just too great for us to bear so that the 13:07.230 --> 13:10.500 National nationally determined contributions country's climate 13:10.500 --> 13:14.940 plans, do help us get a bit closer to our target to around 13:14.940 --> 13:19.620 2.4 degrees. And when you do take into account the sort of 13:19.620 --> 13:23.160 next scenario, when taken to account sort of binding long 13:23.160 --> 13:27.840 term targets and Net Zero targets, then we are getting a 13:27.840 --> 13:35.310 bit closer to our to our goal. And finally, they mystic 13:35.310 --> 13:39.090 scenario, if we take into account net zero emissions 13:39.090 --> 13:43.290 targets of over 140 countries, which are either adopted or 13:43.290 --> 13:47.910 under discussion, and we assume that most of those are hopefully 13:48.120 --> 13:52.200 implemented, then we do get to somewhere around 1.8 degree 13:52.200 --> 13:54.930 eight degree warming, so below two degrees, but what you can 13:54.930 --> 14:00.000 see in this graph is that those crucial next years, in sort of 14:00.030 --> 14:03.960 the, you know, five to 10 years, let's say, in the lead up to 14:03.960 --> 14:08.940 2030, around then where we have to drastically change the shape 14:08.940 --> 14:11.910 of that curve. Otherwise, it's going to be too hard to get back 14:11.910 --> 14:16.530 on track somehow down the line. And so what that means is we 14:16.530 --> 14:20.040 have to decarbonize faster. And to do that, as you all know, we 14:20.040 --> 14:25.740 have to start ramping. winding down are our biggest source of 14:25.740 --> 14:29.670 emissions, which are fossil fuels. So on the next slide, I 14:29.670 --> 14:33.600 also show you a little bit where we are in terms of the the 14:33.600 --> 14:37.560 world's developed fossil fuel reserves. As you can see, they 14:37.560 --> 14:41.400 actually bring us quite a way closer to two degree global 14:41.730 --> 14:46.050 warming. And so what we have to do is to keep much of those 14:46.080 --> 14:50.520 wells, developed coal, oil and gas reserves in the ground to 14:50.520 --> 14:55.140 make sure that we can aim for 1.5 degrees. And this is what I 14:55.140 --> 14:57.180 would like to say about government investment is that 14:57.210 --> 14:59.970 even though it's fantastic that we're seeing green initiatives 15:00.510 --> 15:03.720 renewables and clean technologies developing and 15:03.720 --> 15:07.320 government supporting those, as well as adaptation and risk 15:07.770 --> 15:12.570 mitigation measures, what we really have to do is to bring an 15:12.570 --> 15:18.600 end investment in fossil fuels. On the next slide, I can talk 15:18.600 --> 15:22.200 you through a little bit in terms of what the different 15:22.200 --> 15:25.770 stages of invest investment are for governments. So anything 15:25.770 --> 15:30.150 starting with exploration of fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas 15:30.150 --> 15:35.190 to sort of developing those reserves extraction, processing 15:35.190 --> 15:38.280 them, distributing them. And then on the consumption side, 15:38.460 --> 15:41.670 you know, all the different consumers that that continue to 15:41.670 --> 15:45.690 rely on a very highly fossil fuel based economy, in buildings 15:45.690 --> 15:50.310 and transport, in energy provision, in particular. So 15:50.760 --> 15:54.540 some of our research at ODI, which is based on, you know, 15:54.540 --> 15:57.810 other organisations research as well, tries to bring to light 15:57.810 --> 16:01.200 the level of investment that governments still make in fossil 16:01.200 --> 16:04.950 fuels, which includes, for example, domestic subsidies to 16:04.950 --> 16:08.910 fossil fuel production and consumption. In 2019. Alone, 16:08.940 --> 16:15.150 government's provided $468 billion of subsidies for fossil 16:15.150 --> 16:18.960 fuel production and consumption. And the more there are these 16:18.960 --> 16:20.340 incentives for consumption, 16:22.350 --> 16:25.650 transport systems and energy systems, the more we are 16:25.650 --> 16:29.850 addicted to this way of, of being and the levels of 16:29.850 --> 16:32.730 emissions that we have, government's also invest in 16:32.730 --> 16:36.600 fossil fuels through state owned enterprises, energy companies, 16:36.600 --> 16:39.990 utilities. And then finally, there's a lot of public finance 16:39.990 --> 16:43.050 that goes to fossil fuels domestically and abroad, as well 16:43.050 --> 16:45.930 through export credit agencies, for example, that are supporting 16:45.930 --> 16:50.880 businesses abroad. And so I think this is just to say that, 16:51.060 --> 16:55.800 you know, we absolutely must keep the really important goal 16:55.980 --> 16:59.010 of winding down fossil fuel production consumption, it is 16:59.010 --> 17:02.250 challenging, of course, because it's, you know, part of our 17:02.250 --> 17:06.060 lives in many aspects and making these decisions, especially in 17:06.060 --> 17:08.280 terms of the transition, you know, for the workers who are 17:08.280 --> 17:11.640 employed in those sectors, it's going to be a big transition, as 17:11.640 --> 17:15.960 well as the consumers who rely on on on the energy. And, you 17:15.960 --> 17:19.740 know, the recent energy price crisis, for example, shows how 17:19.740 --> 17:23.700 much we are at the mercy of fossil fuel price volatility. 17:23.700 --> 17:27.150 And, you know, when people's gas bills, etc, increase, the 17:27.150 --> 17:30.060 government has to be there to support them to cushion away 17:30.090 --> 17:33.030 some of that support, but some of that impact, but what they 17:33.030 --> 17:35.940 really must do is to try and support them with alternatives 17:35.940 --> 17:39.930 with alternative energy measures, and also increasing 17:39.930 --> 17:43.380 energy efficiency as much as possible through insulation and 17:43.440 --> 17:47.160 other kinds of energy efficiency investments. So I'll end it 17:47.160 --> 17:51.300 there, just with the main point that it's fantastic to see the 17:51.300 --> 17:55.290 great effort that governments and sub nationals are making. 17:55.530 --> 17:59.010 But we have to try harder, because otherwise, it's going to 17:59.010 --> 18:02.250 become impossible to change our trajectory to reduce our 18:02.250 --> 18:04.770 greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you. 18:06.360 --> 18:10.020 Thanks so much, you're so nice, you know, recognition of the 18:10.020 --> 18:14.550 progress that's been made good that people are now taking this 18:14.580 --> 18:18.030 very seriously as a mainstream issue. But that real challenge 18:18.030 --> 18:20.010 there, as you're saying, especially to our kind of civil 18:20.010 --> 18:22.980 servants, and public servants in the audience, that actually 18:22.980 --> 18:25.890 decisions that they make now are going to be crucial for that 18:25.890 --> 18:30.000 kind of medium and longer term success really succinctly, I 18:30.000 --> 18:32.040 think you put there, it's not only what people decide to 18:32.040 --> 18:36.090 invest in, it's that needing to stop investing in the fossil 18:36.090 --> 18:39.630 fuel industry as well. And then I think you've raised another 18:39.630 --> 18:41.880 issue, which people will be interested in picking up on 18:41.880 --> 18:44.340 probably is how do you manage that transition? Because this is 18:44.340 --> 18:48.450 going to have a huge impact both on people who work maybe in some 18:48.450 --> 18:51.510 of these less sustainable sectors at the moment, but also 18:51.510 --> 18:55.110 for consumers. And so how is all of that going to be managed? So 18:55.110 --> 18:57.810 some really important issues that you've pulled out there. 18:58.110 --> 19:00.630 Thank you so much, Deepak. Now, we're going to go over to 19:00.630 --> 19:02.790 Michael, be interesting to get your view, Michael, having 19:02.790 --> 19:05.460 worked with so many different kinds of civil services, I think 19:05.460 --> 19:06.900 around the world over to you. 19:07.980 --> 19:11.850 Thanks, Ron. And it's great to be here today. And this is 19:12.330 --> 19:15.840 really the topic that's central in many governments as they look 19:15.840 --> 19:20.160 at investment going forward and certainly in their citizens and, 19:20.400 --> 19:23.250 and voters as they consider what what to take forward. If you go 19:23.250 --> 19:28.140 to the next slide. The last two years, as we all know, we've 19:28.140 --> 19:31.260 been busy trying to get through COVID. And we're slowly 19:31.260 --> 19:33.840 beginning to get through that health crisis. And, and now 19:33.840 --> 19:37.980 governments are, you know, as we emerge, we're focused on that 19:37.980 --> 19:41.310 sort of governmental necessity of getting the economy back back 19:41.310 --> 19:43.830 up and running. And historically, is it that's 19:43.860 --> 19:47.490 that's nothing new. We've we've had various crisis and issues in 19:47.490 --> 19:51.300 the past, and governments have looked at that stimulating the 19:51.300 --> 19:55.290 economics in from an economic activity supporting those 19:55.290 --> 19:57.870 businesses that might be distressed, and really just 19:57.900 --> 20:01.920 getting people back to work. You know, what we've seen in the 20:01.920 --> 20:04.890 past is we've seen infrastructure as as one of 20:04.890 --> 20:10.290 those key areas where there is a, it aligns with that stimulus, 20:10.290 --> 20:14.490 because it provides that fiscal stimulus, it's an immediate 20:14.700 --> 20:18.060 impact both on on from an employment point of view, but it 20:18.060 --> 20:24.960 also provides that longer term benefits. And it also, you know, 20:24.990 --> 20:28.350 in terms of, of governments, what they've done is they've 20:28.350 --> 20:32.190 looked at prioritising what they can get what's shovel ready? How 20:32.190 --> 20:36.570 do they get that immediate impact? Now, that is, has been 20:36.570 --> 20:39.180 what's happened in the past and was beginning to happen, you've 20:39.180 --> 20:42.120 seen lots of governments have have have infrastructure 20:42.120 --> 20:45.690 packages that have been put together, nothing new. And in 20:45.690 --> 20:49.470 total, that's about 5 trillion a year. But what has happened 20:49.500 --> 20:54.090 during the last two years is that what and all the all the 20:54.120 --> 20:57.270 research that we did during that period is on top of the health 20:57.270 --> 21:01.650 issues, and you know, economic peace, there was this societal 21:01.650 --> 21:06.480 demand, around green, around climate around equality, around 21:06.480 --> 21:10.170 making sure that that those that ESG agenda, but as we're talking 21:10.170 --> 21:14.490 about today, the climate agenda was brought in. And so those 21:14.490 --> 21:17.370 demands needed to be aligned with, with what how government 21:17.370 --> 21:21.630 looked at this, so So there's now a shift in the objectives. 21:21.780 --> 21:25.140 So it's still there's still that infrastructure investment 21:25.140 --> 21:28.140 required, but you're looking at at clean growth, you're looking 21:28.140 --> 21:31.560 at Employment Equality, you're looking at, you know, equality 21:31.560 --> 21:37.140 of access, to to assets and to infrastructure and services. And 21:37.140 --> 21:41.340 that may not have been been looked at before. And there 21:41.370 --> 21:45.750 there is, you know, greater greater demand for this climate 21:45.750 --> 21:49.080 to be included. And, and, and there are, you know, what, it's 21:49.080 --> 21:55.080 still a stimulus package, it's still there in terms of having 21:55.080 --> 21:55.680 that that 21:57.060 --> 22:02.160 environmental aspect to us. But that has caused government to do 22:02.160 --> 22:07.110 a number of things. It is brought in various, as I've been 22:07.140 --> 22:10.200 called out today, there were various schemes that he liked EU 22:10.200 --> 22:14.910 Green Deal, levelling up, even the Biden build back better is 22:14.910 --> 22:18.960 all around that, you know, focus on climate and getting things 22:18.960 --> 22:22.380 moving. But how government has looked at and evaluating they're 22:22.380 --> 22:26.670 looking at including environmental impact, and even 22:26.670 --> 22:31.230 the, the response to the climate from suppliers within the supply 22:31.230 --> 22:33.600 chain, and how that's included is being brought into 22:33.600 --> 22:39.120 evaluation, we're seeing greater focus on tech, and digital in 22:39.120 --> 22:44.220 terms of not only how we operate and have the infrastructure, but 22:44.220 --> 22:47.310 also in terms of how we plan. So we're beginning to not only, you 22:47.310 --> 22:49.110 know, look at that those operations, but the 22:49.110 --> 22:52.890 environmental impact, as well as those physical and economic 22:52.890 --> 22:57.180 impact. But that all comes at a cost. And so while we did, we 22:57.180 --> 23:00.780 did have a rough run rate of about 5 trillion plan per annum, 23:01.170 --> 23:05.580 that's now gone up to about 6.9. Per According to OECD, in terms 23:05.580 --> 23:10.740 of, of funding. And the challenge now is, with 23:10.740 --> 23:13.350 governments having spent an awful lot of money on COVID and 23:13.350 --> 23:16.470 supporting is, is how do they make sure that they deliver 23:16.470 --> 23:20.250 against this. And we saw previously when it was at five, 23:20.250 --> 23:24.330 only 5 trillion or but only half of that could be supported by 23:24.570 --> 23:27.300 the public sector. So there's a big gap and an even bigger gap 23:27.300 --> 23:33.810 now to to achieve this. But that's not a bad thing. Because 23:34.290 --> 23:37.320 aligned with all of we're looking at his his the the 23:37.320 --> 23:41.400 financial services sector, and particularly, funders and 23:41.400 --> 23:45.000 investment managers are also looking at climate. And they're 23:45.000 --> 23:48.870 also saying that we that they want to lend in and provide 23:48.900 --> 23:54.330 invest in climate projects. And those are projects that meet 23:54.480 --> 23:59.070 environmental criteria. And so the private funding and 23:59.070 --> 24:01.860 infrastructure provides a very good platform for private 24:01.860 --> 24:06.570 finance. But it allows that, that now you have when you have 24:06.570 --> 24:11.130 climate focused projects, properly structured, you now 24:11.130 --> 24:14.580 have this greater demand by the the funding funding markets to 24:14.580 --> 24:17.730 get involved in these projects. So so even though there's a 24:17.730 --> 24:22.380 greater funding gap, and need for private finance, there is 24:22.380 --> 24:24.930 that that availability of funding that that's that's 24:24.930 --> 24:30.990 there, and now not just needs to be be tapped. So there's lots of 24:30.990 --> 24:34.980 challenges to be delivered, but there is a stimulus to be 24:34.980 --> 24:39.390 achieved. I think there not only is there you know that the need 24:39.390 --> 24:42.570 to do this, but there is that societal demand, and even 24:42.570 --> 24:45.720 government commitment in order to do this. So lots of 24:45.720 --> 24:49.440 challenges, lots of money to be spent, but I think the 24:49.440 --> 24:52.200 commitment is there to deliver so we can probably to discuss 24:52.200 --> 24:52.680 later on. 24:53.429 --> 24:55.739 Brilliant. Thank you so much, Michael. Again, lots of 24:55.739 --> 24:58.859 interesting points there. I like the way that you say this time 24:58.859 --> 25:02.399 you know, in The structure of big stimulus packages are 25:02.399 --> 25:05.159 nothing new, especially after kind of big economic 25:05.879 --> 25:09.509 disruptions. But this time, I think different in the, you 25:09.509 --> 25:13.139 know, society is not going to stop demanding now that that is 25:13.139 --> 25:16.409 as you put it a clean growth so that whilst the economy is taken 25:16.409 --> 25:20.519 into account, we don't forget as well as environmental and social 25:20.759 --> 25:24.959 objectives as well. For the civil servants. Again, I think, 25:24.959 --> 25:26.999 as you said, some of the things that are changing maybe as an 25:26.999 --> 25:30.449 increased focus on tech going forward, and also that sense of 25:30.449 --> 25:32.849 how do they measure the sustainability of their entire 25:32.849 --> 25:35.969 supply chains, they're not just looking at the project overall, 25:36.569 --> 25:39.569 going into depth in the supply chain. And then really 25:39.569 --> 25:42.779 interesting what you said at the end this, this isn't just the 25:42.779 --> 25:45.449 public sector, it has to also be the private sector playing their 25:45.449 --> 25:49.439 part. And we certainly saw at COP 26, as you were saying there 25:49.649 --> 25:52.559 a shift, I think in the way that those funders and investment 25:52.559 --> 25:55.979 managers are saying now they won't really want to only be 25:55.979 --> 25:59.759 looking at things that have that real climate focus as well. So 25:59.759 --> 26:02.549 thanks so much, Michael, I'm going to just before we hand 26:02.549 --> 26:05.009 over to Mariano, thank you so much, the audience already 26:05.009 --> 26:08.249 sending in their questions, please do keep those coming. And 26:08.249 --> 26:10.859 Mariana, I'm sure you will pick up on some of those things that 26:10.859 --> 26:14.489 Michael said, around kind of how do we get people back into work? 26:14.489 --> 26:17.999 And, you know, how do we get the economy going? So over to you. 26:19.110 --> 26:22.710 Thank you very much, shirvan. Today, I will present some of 26:22.710 --> 26:27.570 the research conducted at the IMF, on the employment impact of 26:27.570 --> 26:30.450 public investments including green investments. Next slide, 26:30.450 --> 26:35.160 please. So this research was first published in the fiscal 26:35.160 --> 26:41.430 monitor, which appears twice a year and is directed to mostly 26:41.610 --> 26:45.660 public officials, public servants. And in in this in the 26:45.660 --> 26:49.140 second chapter of the fiscal monitor, we covered what are the 26:49.140 --> 26:52.320 policies for the recovery including getting people back to 26:52.320 --> 26:57.840 work. Next slide, please. So the the research had ample coverage 26:58.050 --> 27:04.710 and follow up was a blog that people can just type IMF chart 27:04.710 --> 27:09.660 of the week with a research and also a working paper that is 27:09.690 --> 27:15.630 published next next piece. And there is no relation between 27:16.050 --> 27:19.260 James Bond and the work conducted on the MF, although we 27:19.260 --> 27:21.930 were under pressure to to deliver very quickly, the 27:21.930 --> 27:28.380 results. Next, please. So the key question during the high of 27:28.380 --> 27:34.080 the pandemic, about health, a billion jobs were lost. We know 27:34.080 --> 27:39.390 from previous research that public works work. So during the 27:39.390 --> 27:42.630 Great Depression, depression, for example, the big deal or the 27:42.630 --> 27:47.970 American reconstruction and recovery act during the crisis 27:47.970 --> 27:54.120 of 2008 2009. So, the question was next please, how many jobs 27:54.120 --> 27:58.620 can be created by public investment and this question, we 27:58.620 --> 28:02.580 tackled in a different way. So we covered by sector by income 28:02.580 --> 28:06.420 group countries, and we parameterize labour intensive 28:06.420 --> 28:09.420 and labour mobility and I will show in a second Next please. 28:11.010 --> 28:15.660 So, the overview was to cover the main infrastructure sectors, 28:15.780 --> 28:19.830 education, health, electricity, roads, and water and sanitation. 28:20.220 --> 28:22.830 And the income groups of countries is the classification 28:22.830 --> 28:27.000 we hold at the IMF, advanced economies, emerging market 28:27.030 --> 28:31.710 economies and we also for the lack of data we extrapolated to 28:31.710 --> 28:37.560 low income developing countries. Next please. The methodology is 28:38.730 --> 28:45.510 from micro data to macro data. So, how much $1 million spent in 28:45.510 --> 28:51.030 public works would increase employment in the companies 28:51.030 --> 28:57.780 involved? Next, please. The results are that $1 million can 28:57.780 --> 29:02.160 create between three and seven jobs, stable jobs in advanced 29:02.160 --> 29:06.870 economies, between 10 and 17 in emerging market economies, and 29:06.870 --> 29:11.850 in low income countries, between 16 and 30, green investments and 29:11.850 --> 29:15.780 research and development kept a higher impact and overall on a 29:15.780 --> 29:21.630 global scale 1% of GDP can increase 7 million jobs 29:21.660 --> 29:26.610 worldwide. Next slide please. And here we come to the centre 29:26.610 --> 29:31.260 what are the results by sector and by income group, the 29:31.260 --> 29:36.840 brackets minimum maximum depends on labour mobility between 29:37.410 --> 29:44.400 companies within a sector. So if employees are more flexible, due 29:44.400 --> 29:47.550 to regulations or hiring processes, to move from one 29:47.550 --> 29:51.870 company to the other than the the labour impact of public 29:51.870 --> 29:55.290 investments it's higher. Similarly, if there is a higher 29:55.290 --> 29:59.670 content of labour, Labour intensity within the industry 29:59.670 --> 30:03.360 and within In the income group, there may be for example, more 30:03.360 --> 30:08.910 keep capital intensive that has lower labour impact implementing 30:08.910 --> 30:12.960 but but with higher labour intensity, of course $1 million 30:13.320 --> 30:18.120 will imply higher effects. Overall, we can see that for 30:18.120 --> 30:23.730 example, for advanced economies, the highest multiplier 30:23.790 --> 30:27.990 employment multipliers achieved in energy were $1 million can 30:27.990 --> 30:32.970 create around eight jobs stable jobs, whereas in low income 30:32.970 --> 30:36.720 countries, the higher multiplier comes from what has an imitation 30:36.720 --> 30:42.420 about 30 jobs for each for $1 million of spending in public 30:42.420 --> 30:47.520 works. Next slide, please. And with this one, I conclude So, 30:47.670 --> 30:52.530 efficiency aside, we know that, from previous research that 30:52.560 --> 30:57.480 labour force in state owned enterprises has higher job 30:57.480 --> 31:01.950 intensity therefore, if the aim of the government is to quickly 31:01.950 --> 31:06.060 increase employment, state owned enterprises is a way to channel 31:06.450 --> 31:08.190 second, Next, please. 31:09.750 --> 31:15.330 Second, private investments are not a panacea for limited fiscal 31:15.330 --> 31:19.080 space, especially because it's not free money. And second, 31:19.350 --> 31:24.270 because normally, fiscal space correlate with state capacity 31:24.570 --> 31:30.450 and countries that do not have fiscal space also are weak in 31:30.450 --> 31:34.050 state capacity to be able to absorb and properly regulate 31:34.140 --> 31:39.930 private investments. Next, please. Finally, just to be 31:39.960 --> 31:48.570 clear, the green investments are also may not be reached in the 31:48.600 --> 31:52.050 job reach in the long term. For example, if we have a solar 31:52.050 --> 31:56.460 panel well is instalment, but in the long run, it may not create 31:56.670 --> 32:02.160 jobs in that particular sector. And one thing to bear in mind 32:02.190 --> 32:08.460 where as my previous colleagues mentioned, green investments are 32:08.850 --> 32:13.170 welfare enhancing globally, it may not be welfare and 32:13.170 --> 32:16.800 counselling for a particular country in a particular moment 32:16.800 --> 32:21.690 that are more suitable for or the cost of transition will be 32:21.690 --> 32:26.520 higher. Therefore we have to develop, develop these transfer 32:26.520 --> 32:31.320 schemes to compensate those countries that for whom the 32:31.320 --> 32:35.880 transition will be more costly. Thank you very much. And I, I'm 32:35.880 --> 32:38.850 willing to answer to the questions of makeup. Thank you. 32:39.120 --> 32:42.120 Thank you so much, Mariano. And thank you to all of you for 32:42.330 --> 32:44.460 fantastic presentations. And I have to say, I've been doing 32:44.460 --> 32:47.190 these webinars for quite a while. And you're definitely the 32:47.190 --> 32:50.820 best panel in terms of keeping to time on your presentation. So 32:50.820 --> 32:54.120 thank you so much for that Mariana, lots of interesting 32:54.150 --> 32:57.540 points raised, they're really good to hear about the report 32:57.540 --> 33:01.380 from the IMF, fascinating about what types of investment 33:01.650 --> 33:04.950 actually produced, what types of employment and different in 33:04.950 --> 33:07.710 different countries and in different sectors, but 33:07.740 --> 33:11.640 interesting point that you made that overall green investment 33:11.640 --> 33:14.940 leads to higher employment, or at least in certain types of 33:14.940 --> 33:18.480 economies. And one of one of the things that I want to pick up on 33:18.480 --> 33:21.660 there. And it's also a question that we've had in from the 33:21.660 --> 33:24.450 audience. So Mariana, we'll start with you, because you 33:24.450 --> 33:28.320 raised that, in terms of this isn't the same for every 33:28.320 --> 33:33.060 country. So for kind of low income countries, the transition 33:33.060 --> 33:36.930 is going to be different and you raise there the risks, if civil 33:36.930 --> 33:40.020 servants don't recognise that if the global community doesn't 33:40.020 --> 33:43.500 necessarily recognise that. So I think my question to all of you 33:43.500 --> 33:47.010 is, when it comes to thinking about these public investment 33:47.010 --> 33:51.090 decisions, how can we ensure that this is done in a way 33:51.090 --> 33:54.660 that's fair for all countries that we recognise those 33:54.660 --> 33:58.320 different inequalities? And we've had a question come in 33:58.320 --> 34:02.700 from Loihi. So Mokona, who says a similar thing? What are some 34:02.700 --> 34:06.690 of the key considerations for economies that are energy and 34:06.690 --> 34:11.580 cold intensive, that should inform the just transition? So 34:11.580 --> 34:14.190 Mariana, I'm going to come back to you first, because you ended 34:14.190 --> 34:17.130 on kind of this point, and then I'll put that same question to 34:17.130 --> 34:18.030 each member of the panel. 34:19.139 --> 34:21.959 Yes, thank you for the question. This was related to my last 34:21.959 --> 34:25.289 point, where we talk in economics, Pareto efficiency by 34:25.289 --> 34:28.799 the efficiencies, that the cake is bigger, but nobody has a 34:28.799 --> 34:35.639 smaller piece. And with the transition, it will happen that 34:35.639 --> 34:38.789 some the cake will be bigger, but some countries we have a 34:38.789 --> 34:42.269 smaller piece in that in that cake. Therefore, we have to 34:42.269 --> 34:49.259 think of transfers to also compensate with a surplus for 34:49.259 --> 34:52.799 those countries. This is called the hitch Kaldor efficiency, 34:52.799 --> 34:56.489 where we also incorporate transfers, how those transfers 34:56.489 --> 35:02.159 May May materialise, while it can be for example, preferable 35:02.159 --> 35:07.259 loans or some type of grants to make the transition easier for 35:07.259 --> 35:10.829 countries that are highly dependent in what they produce 35:10.949 --> 35:16.079 on carbon emissions. If a country without sending number 35:16.139 --> 35:20.159 by the country's economy is relying on on fossil fuels, 35:20.339 --> 35:24.419 coal, just saying, Oh, you have to cut your emissions will not 35:24.419 --> 35:29.339 be fair, especially if the country is underdeveloped. And 35:29.369 --> 35:34.259 the way to catch up is maybe to emit a little bit more to catch 35:34.259 --> 35:36.149 up for those countries that during the Industrial 35:36.149 --> 35:41.969 Revolution, were emitting more carbon. So how do we compensate 35:41.969 --> 35:45.599 those countries? That is an open question. But there are several 35:45.599 --> 35:50.339 ways of compensating. And we have to acknowledge that is not 35:50.339 --> 35:53.909 just only setting limits, and imposing those levers. But we 35:53.909 --> 35:59.579 have to go back to what is historically fair for those 35:59.579 --> 36:05.789 countries that were not meeting in previous years, to allow them 36:05.789 --> 36:09.809 to catch up to levels of development, as in emerging 36:09.809 --> 36:12.179 markets or developing economies. 36:12.570 --> 36:16.020 Thanks, Mariano. I mean epoch this question of fairness and 36:16.020 --> 36:19.050 equality is obviously something right at the heart of ODI. So 36:19.050 --> 36:21.030 your thoughts on this issue as well? 36:22.110 --> 36:26.220 Thanks. One, I'd actually like to echo Mariano's point about it 36:26.220 --> 36:29.910 being an international effort. And actually at the cop 26 36:30.360 --> 36:34.770 conference in Glasgow, we saw a first ever initiative supporting 36:34.770 --> 36:37.290 South Africa's energy transition. And it was an 36:37.290 --> 36:40.830 international initiative launched by the UK, France, 36:40.830 --> 36:44.910 Germany, with support from the US and the EU, I believe the 36:44.910 --> 36:48.840 Commission also supported because they recognise that this 36:48.840 --> 36:52.950 is not a transition that South Africa can make on their own. 36:53.250 --> 36:56.970 And so more international initiatives on supporting the 36:56.970 --> 37:00.960 just transition are, I think, critical to this. And, you know, 37:00.990 --> 37:05.190 looking at countries different energy and development pathway, 37:05.190 --> 37:08.910 some countries are still, you know, grappling with, in 37:08.910 --> 37:12.330 addition to the results of the pandemic, their own development 37:12.330 --> 37:16.770 goals, and having to balance between implementing sustainable 37:16.770 --> 37:20.040 development goals and different objectives in health care, 37:20.040 --> 37:24.270 education, energy access, for example. And there, we have to 37:24.270 --> 37:27.300 think, you know, case by case basis, looking at where a 37:27.300 --> 37:30.630 country is, with regards to the options that are available for 37:30.630 --> 37:33.990 them, and the financing that will allow that to happen. In 37:33.990 --> 37:37.080 particular, in terms of energy access, you know, there are now 37:37.110 --> 37:40.740 a lot of initiatives that that allow for distributors of 37:40.740 --> 37:44.010 renewable energy access, but they do come at a higher price 37:44.010 --> 37:48.570 in the short term. And so, you know, if the support can be 37:48.570 --> 37:51.990 provided, and countries are able to make this transition, and as 37:51.990 --> 37:55.890 you say, finally, you know, looking at where countries are 37:55.890 --> 37:59.040 in terms of supporting their sectors, and I think this was 37:59.040 --> 38:01.620 one of the questions that came in as well, that are going to be 38:01.620 --> 38:04.440 on their way out, they have to think about the workers and 38:04.440 --> 38:07.380 communities involved in those sectors, whether it's early 38:07.380 --> 38:11.280 retirement schemes, or, you know, re retraining and skills 38:11.280 --> 38:14.310 development in these new sectors. Again, those have to be 38:14.310 --> 38:19.920 provided, also to support, you know, the general public in 38:19.920 --> 38:22.140 supporting this transition. You know, there's been a lot of 38:22.140 --> 38:25.050 backlash in countries where governments have made these 38:25.050 --> 38:28.410 decisions very quickly, increased prices for consumers. 38:28.410 --> 38:32.040 And, you know, as we've seen in Kazakhstan, and, and France some 38:32.040 --> 38:34.860 years ago, you know, this leads to a lot of backlash, so the 38:34.860 --> 38:37.980 general public have to be brought along as well. And for 38:37.980 --> 38:41.130 that, the government has to show that they are supporting the 38:41.130 --> 38:41.790 transition. 38:42.450 --> 38:45.600 Thank you very much picked up Mariano's point about the risk 38:45.600 --> 38:47.970 of backlash as well, if you bring these things in without 38:48.300 --> 38:51.120 without thinking about those kinds of issues? Christiana, I'm 38:51.150 --> 38:54.780 you can very much answer as well on the question of equality and 38:54.780 --> 38:57.870 fairness. But also there's a question specifically for you, 38:58.170 --> 39:02.220 which is just is the EU net zero the same definition as the one 39:02.220 --> 39:06.540 in the UK? So you mentioned carbon neutral, but net zero and 39:06.540 --> 39:11.430 carbon neutral are not the same in the UK? So just could you 39:11.430 --> 39:14.550 give a flavour of the terminology, I guess, around 39:14.550 --> 39:17.430 that, and then if you want also your thoughts on the equality 39:17.430 --> 39:17.820 issue. 39:19.230 --> 39:24.480 Thank you. So I, I would be very brief on the equality issue in 39:24.480 --> 39:30.180 saying that, we definitely need a coordinated effort in tackling 39:30.180 --> 39:34.830 this and that the EU is very much supporting and pushing for 39:34.830 --> 39:40.710 coordination in all the global fora the g7, the G 20. So there 39:40.710 --> 39:46.500 is a lot being done there. A specific point I would add to 39:46.500 --> 39:51.570 the challenge is that in terms of the management of the public 39:51.570 --> 39:53.790 investment and the implementation of the public 39:53.790 --> 39:57.870 investment, the research and the evidence points that this will 39:57.870 --> 40:02.340 be an additional challenge for emerging for for emerging and 40:02.340 --> 40:06.240 developing economies because they appear to have a little 40:06.510 --> 40:10.170 less efficient management than the advanced economies. So this 40:10.170 --> 40:14.010 will be an additional challenge to what we've been discussing. 40:14.460 --> 40:18.660 And, and then and then to the to the particular question on 40:18.660 --> 40:22.920 terminology. So thanks a lot for bringing that up. I think 40:22.950 --> 40:27.960 indeed, the 2050 target is about carbon neutrality, which is 40:27.960 --> 40:33.300 different. So it means that you can offset that the emissions 40:33.300 --> 40:38.370 should be offset to zero. So that is different from the net 40:39.000 --> 40:42.900 concept in the UK. But at the same time, I would also mention 40:42.900 --> 40:47.730 that the intermediate targets at the EU level set for 2030 speaks 40:48.000 --> 40:55.890 explicitly about a net reduction of 55% in emissions. So you have 40:55.890 --> 41:00.030 a different ambition level, depending on the timeline. 41:00.450 --> 41:03.180 Okay, thanks for Stannah, Michael, I'm going to talk to 41:03.180 --> 41:06.210 you again, you can give your thoughts on the issue of kind of 41:06.270 --> 41:09.120 equality and fairness of the transition. But there's also a 41:09.120 --> 41:14.250 specific question come in for you from John Gower. And the 41:14.250 --> 41:17.760 question is, is there an opportunity for insurance and 41:17.760 --> 41:21.270 pension funds to invest in decarbonisation, and especially 41:21.270 --> 41:24.660 building flood defences, it's in their longtime interest to 41:24.660 --> 41:27.360 prevent future impacts, such as flooding and investment in 41:27.360 --> 41:31.500 renewable energy will likely pay good financial dividends? So 41:31.500 --> 41:34.020 this has been put to you, other people might have done that as 41:34.020 --> 41:36.450 well. But any thoughts? Yeah, I mean, the 41:36.450 --> 41:40.740 simple answer is yes. It absolutely, as it is already 41:40.740 --> 41:44.790 happening in terms of pension funds, life insurance, 41:45.090 --> 41:50.220 insurance, use it those type of companies, investing surplus 41:50.220 --> 41:53.820 funds, or investment funds into infrastructure projects, 41:54.150 --> 41:59.670 including the energy and, you know, if you they have they 41:59.670 --> 42:02.190 gone, most of them have been in more mature markets, which are 42:02.190 --> 42:05.130 used to to infrastructure financing, particularly the UK 42:05.130 --> 42:10.830 as sort of starter, but it's also elsewhere. I guess, in some 42:10.830 --> 42:14.790 ways, it comes back to this, you know, data quality question is, 42:14.820 --> 42:18.210 sometimes the issue is around around getting the funding in. 42:18.600 --> 42:22.410 And sometimes, and while there's lots of support from EU and 42:22.620 --> 42:27.300 World Bank, and particularly in emerging markets, what what you 42:27.300 --> 42:30.840 need to get is these type of, you know, pension funds and 42:30.840 --> 42:33.570 setting up the structure appropriately, that you're 42:33.570 --> 42:36.900 allowing these long term funds in, because they, they're most 42:36.900 --> 42:39.270 of those are looking to put money away for long, longer term 42:39.270 --> 42:42.150 than their returns that they require are that are less, and 42:42.150 --> 42:45.360 infrastructure is a lower risk project, particularly if wrapped 42:45.360 --> 42:50.130 by the likes of World Bank or EU or whatever. So, so if you get 42:50.130 --> 42:52.530 that structure, right, you can get more of these capital 42:52.530 --> 42:55.650 sources into these type of projects. And you're right, in 42:55.650 --> 42:58.470 terms of of them, you know, flood damage, and and, you know, 42:58.470 --> 43:00.810 protecting all the real estate, all of those things are good, 43:00.810 --> 43:05.400 you know, it's preventative rather than than, you know, 43:05.400 --> 43:10.860 solving disasters in time. So, so all all of those are, yes, 43:10.860 --> 43:15.510 they definitely can happen. But you need structure, but you need 43:15.510 --> 43:20.400 in and depending on the the where, where you're investing in 43:20.400 --> 43:24.540 and the maturity of that market, you might need further support 43:24.540 --> 43:28.290 from the large entities and larger development bank type 43:28.290 --> 43:30.570 type of support, and that can make this happen. 43:31.170 --> 43:34.200 Thanks. On the issue of preventative my question to all 43:34.200 --> 43:36.660 of you just very quick thoughts on this, because we've got lots 43:36.660 --> 43:40.260 of questions coming in from the audience to get through. But and 43:40.260 --> 43:42.840 I think you all mentioned at some point, kind of better risk 43:43.140 --> 43:46.110 impact and impact assessments and risk management in these 43:46.110 --> 43:49.770 areas. Do you think civil servants in different countries 43:49.770 --> 43:51.990 around the world? Do you think they understand enough about the 43:51.990 --> 43:56.010 cost of inaction, as well as they do factoring in the cost of 43:56.040 --> 43:59.580 action? Is that something do you think that civil servants need 43:59.580 --> 44:03.150 to get better at it? You're, you're kind of nodding your head 44:03.210 --> 44:04.320 respond. I mean, I think 44:04.350 --> 44:07.380 it's because all of us need to understand it better. I mean, we 44:07.380 --> 44:09.600 shouldn't just point the finger at civil servants. This is this 44:09.600 --> 44:13.080 is a very difficult calculations. But I think 44:13.080 --> 44:16.050 they're also very frightening one. So I mean, that was part of 44:16.050 --> 44:18.930 what I was trying to say in my presentation that we just don't 44:19.140 --> 44:21.870 see the longer term picture and the bigger term picture, and we 44:21.990 --> 44:24.630 were very proud of what we can achieve and what we've been able 44:24.630 --> 44:27.390 to do. And governments in particular are very proud of 44:27.390 --> 44:32.310 their green investments, but we just don't see the cost of and 44:32.310 --> 44:37.260 the risks of inaction. And, you know, I think it would make a 44:37.260 --> 44:41.010 lot of sense for governments to support their civil servants in 44:41.010 --> 44:44.040 getting better training in this and financial institutions are 44:44.040 --> 44:48.540 doing better at this now but because if we don't understand 44:48.540 --> 44:53.010 the cost of stranded assets, the cost of the risks the disasters, 44:53.010 --> 44:57.090 the physical costs of standing of these assets, but also of 44:57.120 --> 45:00.720 extreme weather events, which will continue to amplify And I 45:00.720 --> 45:03.720 think, you know, one thing we are finally seeing, 45:03.750 --> 45:07.620 unfortunately, is the the physical impact and the sort of 45:07.620 --> 45:10.890 implications of climate change with the weather patterns really 45:10.890 --> 45:14.010 changing and extreme weather events occurring more and more, 45:14.490 --> 45:18.000 you know, from floods, to wildfires to tornadoes, etc, 45:18.210 --> 45:21.270 really occurring more regularly. And so at least there is a 45:21.270 --> 45:24.630 public awareness of this. But as you say, I think we have to 45:24.630 --> 45:28.230 follow through in terms of really mainstreaming these kinds 45:28.230 --> 45:31.050 of analysis to the decisions that we're making everyday and 45:31.050 --> 45:31.440 civil. 45:32.940 --> 45:35.940 Thanks, you. Are there? You've worked in a ministry yourself, 45:35.940 --> 45:38.370 do you think, you know, you understand politicians always 45:38.370 --> 45:41.220 have to justify what they spend their money on? Do you think 45:41.220 --> 45:44.730 they have to justify what they don't spend their money on? You 45:44.730 --> 45:54.120 know, enough? I need to take you off mute Mariana, I think there 45:54.120 --> 45:54.420 we go. 45:54.840 --> 46:00.060 Yes. Well, this is also political economy question 46:00.060 --> 46:05.100 whether the constituencies, what do they require from 46:05.100 --> 46:08.490 politicians, in my own experience, and also in research 46:08.520 --> 46:13.110 that I have done on political contestability normally, actions 46:13.140 --> 46:18.300 are more risky than inaction. Therefore, the equilibrium is 46:18.330 --> 46:23.880 that a politician prefers to not act than to take a risky action 46:25.020 --> 46:31.080 or when acting also another risk is to make all the actions are 46:31.110 --> 46:37.470 very rigid, very regulated, extremely narrow in the 46:37.470 --> 46:41.970 flexibility to take different paths, so that at the end, I can 46:41.970 --> 46:47.040 say, I play by the book. So playing by the book is what is 46:47.310 --> 46:52.260 always said that I have to do and an inaction normally, there 46:52.260 --> 46:57.990 is no sins of omission, or they are very little in the in the 46:57.990 --> 47:02.610 textbook. Therefore, for a politician in general, it's 47:03.390 --> 47:09.750 better to enact which is very inefficient, especially in in 47:09.780 --> 47:12.390 decarbonizing the economy, because we have to take some 47:12.390 --> 47:19.170 actions, but taking selections have the risk of making some of 47:19.170 --> 47:22.590 the constituencies very angry, and those constituents may be 47:23.850 --> 47:27.480 maybe more powerful than the whole majority. 47:27.990 --> 47:30.750 Yeah. Thanks, very. We've got so many questions. I'm actually 47:30.750 --> 47:32.730 going to question I'm going to put this to you. But I'm going 47:32.730 --> 47:35.490 to bring in another question. So I think it links nicely to it. 47:35.490 --> 47:40.500 So this is from Rashid Nabee, who asks, are governments ready 47:40.500 --> 47:43.710 to introduce regulations and policies to discourage 47:43.710 --> 47:47.550 investments in fossil fuel infrastructure packages still 47:47.550 --> 47:50.370 encourage fossil fuel based industries? I think this goes 47:50.370 --> 47:54.150 back to what EPA was saying that it's not fast enough that we are 47:54.150 --> 47:59.190 not investing in some of the fossil fuels. Your thoughts on 47:59.190 --> 48:00.150 that? Christiana? 48:00.960 --> 48:05.970 Yes. So if I may 1, react to what Mariano said, I found 48:05.970 --> 48:11.670 extremely interesting, on the lack of attention to inaction. 48:12.060 --> 48:15.180 And I would just like to echo that I think much of the work 48:15.180 --> 48:18.150 that we are doing, and the one that I see is very much focused 48:18.180 --> 48:21.480 on what we could do, and how could implement these targets 48:21.480 --> 48:26.850 and doing more, to achieve them. But not so much on inaction. I 48:26.850 --> 48:30.660 think on there, there is less, but it's increasing to become 48:30.660 --> 48:33.930 more and here I can relate to this discussion that we are 48:33.930 --> 48:38.700 having on the costs of disasters that are big, as Deepak also 48:38.700 --> 48:41.460 said, they're becoming increasingly mainstream now, 48:41.490 --> 48:45.210 because they're so visible. I think even my grandmother can 48:45.210 --> 48:48.750 mention, you know, he she knows of extreme events, somewhere in 48:48.750 --> 48:54.360 Southeast Asia. So it's becoming increasingly, the awareness is 48:54.360 --> 48:57.060 definitely increasing. But the question is whether it's fast 48:57.060 --> 49:03.000 enough. And on the question of discouraging fossil fuels, so I 49:03.000 --> 49:07.680 think here as well, what I see is that the approach is quite 49:07.680 --> 49:14.940 gradual as well. So rather than, you know, taking very bold steps 49:14.940 --> 49:19.890 and banning certain industries, I think the approach still seems 49:19.890 --> 49:23.790 to be more in the sense of encouraging the alternative 49:24.120 --> 49:30.030 energy sources, and so and so on. So but I, I think the 49:30.030 --> 49:33.270 pressures really on the policymakers to become bolder 49:33.300 --> 49:36.840 there. But then I would say the approach still appears to be 49:36.870 --> 49:40.440 more gradual, maybe than expected. 49:40.920 --> 49:44.430 Thanks. Question, Michael, from your perspective working kind of 49:44.460 --> 49:47.430 straddling private and public sector would you like to see 49:47.430 --> 49:50.130 governments introduce more regulations and policies to kind 49:50.130 --> 49:52.230 of force pace of change? 49:54.030 --> 49:57.300 No, it did, the private sector will once more transactions that 49:57.300 --> 50:01.050 they can get involved in so there's a demand for or other 50:01.050 --> 50:04.500 desire to get involved in these type of projects. So, I think if 50:04.530 --> 50:09.840 if government can, you know, remain committed to those those 50:09.840 --> 50:13.380 spends that they're putting forward as, as from a, you know, 50:13.380 --> 50:17.400 national development plans and whatever, align that with 50:17.400 --> 50:20.670 climate, even if they don't have the capital, there is a, there 50:20.670 --> 50:24.360 is a pool of money that's available to support that. And 50:24.510 --> 50:27.630 so anything that can help that along, I mean, you know, 50:28.140 --> 50:34.200 regulation and more more, if it creates blockages or red tape, 50:34.200 --> 50:38.490 that's not a great thing. But I think it's more about how do you 50:38.490 --> 50:43.530 get, you know, think about getting these delivered? What's, 50:43.560 --> 50:46.140 what's the way to do that, because that is that overall 50:46.140 --> 50:48.840 positive piece. And as long as they align with that overall 50:48.840 --> 50:52.920 strategy, but the the, the, you know, target towards them carbon 50:52.920 --> 50:58.260 neutral, all of those elements, then you know, that they funding 50:58.260 --> 51:00.960 and, you know, once it achieves those objectives, and you work 51:00.960 --> 51:04.230 your way through it, the funding of it should be the second piece 51:04.230 --> 51:07.710 of the consideration rather than the primary piece, because you 51:07.710 --> 51:12.750 need to figure out what project you need to implement. And so it 51:12.750 --> 51:15.870 is it is whatever is needed to keep, keep these these projects 51:15.870 --> 51:19.620 moving and for government to say committed and willing to spend, 51:19.920 --> 51:22.680 including all their evaluations and doing all the all the right 51:22.680 --> 51:26.550 things. But making sure that these that it's not that that 51:26.550 --> 51:29.670 funding point, because that bringing in private capital can 51:29.670 --> 51:34.590 deliver these can still achieve all the government wants to. And 51:34.620 --> 51:37.380 ultimately we get the final result that we're looking for. 51:38.190 --> 51:40.890 Thanks, Michael. We've got loads of questions coming in, which is 51:40.890 --> 51:45.930 really good to see. There's one here that builds on something 51:45.930 --> 51:49.290 that you said, Mariana, where you said that green investments 51:49.290 --> 51:52.350 don't necessarily lead to long term job growth. So you 51:52.350 --> 51:55.650 mentioned the installation of solar panels. And the question 51:55.650 --> 52:00.090 from Justin soldes, then is, I'm curious as to the panel's 52:00.090 --> 52:03.540 thoughts with regards to job growth into positions by a 52:03.540 --> 52:06.540 government intervention in digital transformation 52:06.600 --> 52:09.960 initiatives. So Christiana, you mentioned kind of the, you know, 52:09.960 --> 52:12.900 the green and green priorities that the EU Commission had 52:12.900 --> 52:17.460 alongside kind of digital priorities as well. So thoughts 52:17.490 --> 52:21.570 about not just kind of green investments, but how investing 52:21.570 --> 52:25.530 in digital might actually help some of these long term issues. 52:25.680 --> 52:29.280 Going forward, I can see Mariano that you are nodding, I'm going 52:29.280 --> 52:31.980 to come to Christiana first and then to Mariana. So I'm not sure 52:31.980 --> 52:34.170 if you pull that out in your report as well. Mariana but 52:34.170 --> 52:36.660 Christiana, your thoughts on digital and how that might help 52:36.660 --> 52:37.380 going forward? 52:38.400 --> 52:44.100 Yes, so definitely, and just to re emphasise the point that's on 52:44.100 --> 52:48.450 the slide. So indeed, the Commission recognises that the 52:48.480 --> 52:53.190 digital investments can to a large extent, support the green 52:53.190 --> 52:58.830 transition and that for so there is this digital target in the 52:58.860 --> 53:03.270 RRF in the in the five year recovery plan, and which we seen 53:03.270 --> 53:08.400 was over achieved, and so not only there, but there is a lot 53:08.400 --> 53:16.830 of additional initiatives at the EU level, aiming to support the 53:16.830 --> 53:22.920 digital infrastructure. So I'm I'm not super informed about 53:22.920 --> 53:27.690 that. But I know there is a lot of a lot going on, including is 53:27.720 --> 53:31.710 establishing a unique digital market. So that's definitely 53:32.130 --> 53:34.920 very high on the agenda. 53:35.280 --> 53:38.880 Thanks, Michelle and Mariano, I can see you eager to get in here 53:38.880 --> 53:40.260 on the digital side of things. 53:41.010 --> 53:45.630 Well, actually, we're working at the IMF now in the costing of 53:45.630 --> 53:48.750 digital infrastructure for the world. So, how much it would 53:48.750 --> 53:53.610 take for all countries individually to achieve the SDG 53:53.610 --> 54:00.630 goals of connectivity by 2030 that says, digitalization 54:00.630 --> 54:04.710 increases of course, productivity is the way to go, 54:05.070 --> 54:10.170 but is not clear whether that would lead to lower emissions. 54:10.200 --> 54:13.500 And let me let me give you a simple example. If we have good 54:13.500 --> 54:18.240 digital infrastructure, maybe we need to commute less. So we use 54:18.240 --> 54:23.640 less cars, but the economy increases and we may have more 54:23.640 --> 54:28.890 trade internal trade, which also produces carbon, more pizzas to 54:28.890 --> 54:34.680 be delivered home. So the net net at the end is still unclear, 54:34.740 --> 54:40.260 our models are ambiguous in what would be the result. So what is 54:40.380 --> 54:45.450 from an economic point of view enhancing for for growth may not 54:45.450 --> 54:49.410 be necessarily good for carbon emissions. So we have to think 54:49.470 --> 54:55.920 in parallel that digitalization does not equal zero emissions. 54:56.130 --> 54:59.490 digitalization is moving to another economy, type of 54:59.490 --> 55:04.320 economy. We want to move there. But we have to think, in 55:04.320 --> 55:08.280 parallel how to, to keep emissions low. 55:09.180 --> 55:10.890 Thanks very Michael, I'm gonna ask. 55:11.640 --> 55:13.860 So I was just going to pick up on on that digital piece if I 55:13.860 --> 55:17.940 might just Shavon. Just Just briefly. I mean, I think there's 55:17.940 --> 55:21.390 two things. One is that digital infrastructure is now becoming 55:21.390 --> 55:24.540 what was deemed essential infrastructure. So, you know, 55:24.570 --> 55:27.450 it's so where previously we needed our roads and our rail to 55:27.450 --> 55:31.290 get around. Now we need broadband, and when and 5g in 55:31.290 --> 55:34.410 order to do things like we're doing now at the moment. So I 55:34.410 --> 55:37.710 think that's a critical piece. And that has impact on that. The 55:37.710 --> 55:41.220 other bit, I would say, is the use of digital within within our 55:41.220 --> 55:45.000 projects, particularly infrastructure projects. And the 55:45.030 --> 55:49.710 we use a lot of work around digital twins. And so they when 55:49.740 --> 55:53.730 that early evaluation, understanding what the impact of 55:54.090 --> 55:57.330 various projects, you know, if you're building something, or 55:57.330 --> 56:00.090 doing something, or changing something, not only looking at 56:00.090 --> 56:02.250 things like mobility, but also looking at what the 56:02.250 --> 56:05.640 environmental impact would be, and then you're able to plan 56:05.640 --> 56:09.660 that up and see how that goes forward. And we be able to do 56:09.660 --> 56:13.020 that on on on existing infrastructure, because what 56:13.020 --> 56:16.140 we've been doing in some parts of the world is putting sensors 56:16.140 --> 56:20.190 across the entire transport network, road network of large 56:20.190 --> 56:23.580 areas. And what that does is first allows us to see what the 56:23.580 --> 56:25.800 movement of traffic is, and we can understand and start 56:25.800 --> 56:31.140 simulating that. And seeing what how can you change that to make 56:32.670 --> 56:36.180 to reduce the emissions. And so if you've got a smoother traffic 56:36.180 --> 56:39.690 flows, less less starting and accelerating, all that sort of 56:39.750 --> 56:42.060 solving, accelerating, all of those things are positive for 56:42.060 --> 56:45.570 from an environmental point of view. So use that use technology 56:45.570 --> 56:48.330 and digital within embedded within the infrastructure to do 56:48.330 --> 56:51.570 that, what that allows you to do is move from simulation to 56:51.570 --> 56:55.590 actual traffic management. And now all those that was a 56:55.590 --> 56:59.250 simulation tool is now there. And you can manage your entire 56:59.250 --> 57:04.080 traffic system with an emissions and an environmental focus, 57:04.080 --> 57:07.890 rather than just a traffic and mobility piece. So I think 57:07.890 --> 57:12.330 there's a lot of bits of digital, and tech can consider 57:12.330 --> 57:16.710 providing within this and can help. But you know, it's a long 57:16.710 --> 57:17.190 way to go. 57:18.060 --> 57:20.100 Thanks, Michael APEC, I'm going to come to you in a moment. I 57:20.100 --> 57:21.930 know you're keen to get in on a couple of the other questions. 57:21.930 --> 57:23.940 But Michael, just picking up on that there was a question 57:23.940 --> 57:27.570 directly to you from Paulo. I think you might have just 57:27.570 --> 57:30.540 answered it. But I'm going to get it out in case you want to 57:30.540 --> 57:33.540 add anything. So Paolo says, My question is for Michael, I 57:33.540 --> 57:37.320 wonder if the model you propose. So stimulate economic activity, 57:37.320 --> 57:40.260 assisting businesses and getting individuals back to work really 57:40.260 --> 57:43.290 responds to the need to move to a new paradigm beyond the 57:43.290 --> 57:46.830 traditional economy? What about ideas related to communities, 57:46.830 --> 57:50.310 communal management of resources, etc? Thank you. I 57:50.310 --> 57:52.740 think you might have just answered that in saying this. 57:52.830 --> 57:58.620 Well, yeah, I think I think what I was saying is that, that, you 57:58.620 --> 58:01.770 know, just focus on jobs and distressed businesses, and all 58:01.770 --> 58:04.980 of that was the old way. Yeah, society is saying, you've got to 58:04.980 --> 58:07.620 look at this differently. And I think governments are doing 58:07.620 --> 58:10.680 that. And so yes, it looks at communities, it looks at 58:10.890 --> 58:15.510 investment with, you know, clean growth, that, you know, equality 58:15.510 --> 58:18.450 and, and, and there's a sharing piece that falls into that, 58:18.450 --> 58:21.240 which is where the communities and, you know, putting in the 58:21.240 --> 58:24.330 infrastructure to allow that to happen, like digital, like 58:24.330 --> 58:27.480 broadband, all of those other things, I think are relevant. 58:27.480 --> 58:32.250 So, yeah, I mean, it is it is more it has evolved from that, 58:32.250 --> 58:34.530 that old way of doing it. And I think it's gonna you know, with 58:34.530 --> 58:35.790 a bit of luck, it will stay that way. 58:36.180 --> 58:40.140 Yeah, thanks. So we've got a couple of questions here that a 58:40.170 --> 58:43.770 bit more kind of specific, I think about some specific 58:43.770 --> 58:48.600 environmental issues. Let me just bring up so Peter has 58:48.600 --> 58:52.260 asked, governments are promoting the use of electric vehicles and 58:52.260 --> 58:54.990 the banning of the sale of fossil fuel burning vehicles to 58:54.990 --> 58:58.350 meet the netzero commitments. However, extraction of materials 58:58.350 --> 59:01.860 required for Evie batteries involve controversial practices 59:02.100 --> 59:04.320 in extracting them in other countries where human rights may 59:04.320 --> 59:07.560 be violated? How do we ensure an ethical and reliable source of 59:07.560 --> 59:10.980 materials in the supply chain for the production of electric 59:10.980 --> 59:15.360 vehicles? So I think this goes back to this sense of, you know, 59:15.360 --> 59:17.280 you have to look across the supply chain, we're looking at 59:17.280 --> 59:20.460 social issues, equality issues, not just environmental or 59:20.460 --> 59:23.430 economic issues as well. EPAP, your thoughts on this? 59:24.960 --> 59:29.100 I mean, unfortunately, green doesn't always mean, you know, 59:29.100 --> 59:31.380 everything will be good and easy. I think that's the 59:31.380 --> 59:35.970 challenge. And yes, some of these issues and concerns that 59:35.970 --> 59:40.350 have existed around extractives in fossil fuel extractives and 59:40.350 --> 59:44.400 other mining will continue to be the case in these technologies. 59:44.400 --> 59:48.240 So, you know, as I was saying earlier, we have to look at the 59:48.240 --> 59:51.210 broader development goals, sustainable development goals 59:51.210 --> 59:54.300 and broader objectives. And that's why you know, many 59:54.300 --> 59:59.250 departments are looking at these ESG issues altogether. So it is 59:59.550 --> 01:00:04.020 a case of balancing these, these different considerations. But 01:00:04.020 --> 01:00:07.740 absolutely, you know, we can't just say we can go green at the 01:00:07.740 --> 01:00:11.820 cost of obviously, humanitarian issues. Actually, some work 01:00:11.820 --> 01:00:14.700 we're doing at ODI, at the moment is looking at the 01:00:14.820 --> 01:00:18.360 inequality impact of some of the green policies and again, 01:00:18.360 --> 01:00:22.740 similar challenges exist there, you can't automatically put in 01:00:22.770 --> 01:00:27.030 place measures that are going to be at the detriment of people. 01:00:27.030 --> 01:00:30.810 So absolutely. Very valid point, Peter. And and there are 01:00:30.810 --> 01:00:32.580 initiatives now starting to tackle that. 01:00:33.600 --> 01:00:36.270 Christiana, is this thanks effect? Christiana? Is this 01:00:36.270 --> 01:00:41.100 something that you're thinking about at the EU level as well? 01:00:41.759 --> 01:00:46.559 Yeah, so it's really an important issue. And there is no 01:00:46.559 --> 01:00:50.699 simple way to deal with it. But there are some ways that the 01:00:50.729 --> 01:00:53.699 commission is exploring. So I could mention there this 01:00:53.939 --> 01:00:59.459 principle of do no significant harm, for example, that was it's 01:00:59.459 --> 01:01:03.149 part of the taxonomy, classifying the environmental 01:01:03.149 --> 01:01:09.389 sustainability activities. So you know, the investment that 01:01:09.389 --> 01:01:14.939 you make should not make a significant harm. And then, on 01:01:14.939 --> 01:01:19.679 the issue of the supply chain, some an initiative that the 01:01:19.679 --> 01:01:24.359 Commission is considering looks at taxing attacks on the carbon 01:01:24.359 --> 01:01:28.739 intensity of imported goods. So I think that can address some of 01:01:28.739 --> 01:01:33.179 the issues related to goods that comes, you know, outside the EU, 01:01:33.419 --> 01:01:37.079 and that may have some of the challenges that were raised. 01:01:38.009 --> 01:01:41.579 Thanks, question. Mariano or Michael, did you want to come in 01:01:41.609 --> 01:01:45.749 on this issue? Or should we move on to the next question? Nope. 01:01:45.749 --> 01:01:46.889 Michael Mariana 01:01:48.780 --> 01:01:53.310 do small issues. One is, the question is very well placed. 01:01:53.610 --> 01:01:57.120 Because, for example, solar panels is zero, EMI zero 01:01:57.120 --> 01:02:00.060 emissions in the place of use, but it's not zero emissions in 01:02:00.060 --> 01:02:02.700 the place where they are produced. So it's like 01:02:02.700 --> 01:02:06.600 transferring, where the carbon production is placed. And 01:02:06.600 --> 01:02:10.440 normally, unfortunately, it happens in low income countries 01:02:10.650 --> 01:02:17.310 where the extracted are. So that is to keep it very clear there. 01:02:17.310 --> 01:02:22.170 So we need to compensate for for those investments. 01:02:22.560 --> 01:02:25.980 Thanks. Okay. So we've got a different type of question here. 01:02:25.980 --> 01:02:30.420 This is coming from to basically masala, who asks, What role does 01:02:30.420 --> 01:02:33.540 the insurance industry play in protecting the infrastructure 01:02:33.540 --> 01:02:37.530 investment? Could its ability to protect investment limit 01:02:37.530 --> 01:02:44.610 progress that is needed? I am going to ask Michael, his 01:02:44.610 --> 01:02:45.120 thoughts on 01:02:46.380 --> 01:02:53.580 an easy one. Yeah. So look, the firstly, insurance is important 01:02:53.880 --> 01:02:56.220 in these projects, particularly if you bring in private finance, 01:02:56.220 --> 01:03:00.630 you will not get private finance without insurance. And so So, so 01:03:00.630 --> 01:03:05.160 in that way, it's not an inhibitor. I think the again, 01:03:05.160 --> 01:03:11.010 you probably want to properly structure it, to in order to get 01:03:11.010 --> 01:03:15.390 it in there and have appropriate insurance cover. But you know, 01:03:15.420 --> 01:03:20.130 it's there. But, you know, you can only insure certain things, 01:03:20.130 --> 01:03:23.730 and it's what are you trying to ensure, and so it's only an 01:03:23.730 --> 01:03:27.660 inhibitor if you try and go over, overboard on it. And then, 01:03:27.690 --> 01:03:30.210 you know, certain cert, as I said, certain risks are not 01:03:30.240 --> 01:03:35.640 insurable. But the bank that the funding sector understands that 01:03:35.670 --> 01:03:38.130 and understands what what can and can't be done. And and so 01:03:38.130 --> 01:03:41.070 you're protecting certain levels. And, you know, if the 01:03:41.070 --> 01:03:44.280 risk is too high, and it's not insured insurable? Well, that's 01:03:44.280 --> 01:03:46.890 where, you know, there's other entities can come in and wrap 01:03:46.890 --> 01:03:49.710 around that and or maybe it's public sector or assume that 01:03:49.710 --> 01:03:54.360 risk as they do and all the things. So again, it shouldn't 01:03:54.570 --> 01:03:59.460 be the thing that that holds us up. That said, if it because if 01:03:59.550 --> 01:04:03.510 if it goes to such an extent that it's a problem, well, then 01:04:03.510 --> 01:04:07.410 maybe the project is structured or you know whether, you know, 01:04:07.440 --> 01:04:11.490 the entirety of us is too risky anyway, that maybe you need to 01:04:11.490 --> 01:04:14.400 restart and have a look at it and see whether whether you 01:04:14.400 --> 01:04:16.380 should try again in terms of the approach. 01:04:17.160 --> 01:04:20.490 Thanks, Michael. Mariana, did you have any thoughts on the 01:04:20.490 --> 01:04:21.810 insurance question? 01:04:25.110 --> 01:04:29.370 Yes, so from an economic point of view, insurance adds to the 01:04:29.370 --> 01:04:34.710 cost, the normal view from early on late 1970s, that the public 01:04:34.710 --> 01:04:39.930 sector insurance in itself, because it's better to transfer 01:04:40.170 --> 01:04:43.590 different risk from different industries without the markup of 01:04:43.590 --> 01:04:46.410 the insurance if markets are incomplete. If markets are 01:04:46.410 --> 01:04:49.560 complete, and we are an efficient economy, insurance is 01:04:49.560 --> 01:04:54.180 well priced, but generally for risk there are when we are in 01:04:54.180 --> 01:04:58.560 the unknown, unknown. We don't know what are the unknowns of 01:04:58.560 --> 01:05:00.900 the future and we don't know that the future visions of the 01:05:01.170 --> 01:05:06.450 unknown, it may make sense for the public sector to step in as 01:05:06.510 --> 01:05:12.570 a global insurance. So in transitioning to, to a zero 01:05:12.570 --> 01:05:16.500 economy, carbon economy, it may make sense for the public 01:05:16.500 --> 01:05:22.020 sectors to step in to cover for what would be an expensive 01:05:22.020 --> 01:05:25.020 insurance from the private insurance. 01:05:25.590 --> 01:05:28.860 Okay, thanks very much. I'm going to move on because I can't 01:05:28.860 --> 01:05:30.840 believe the time how quickly it's gone. We've probably only 01:05:30.840 --> 01:05:34.170 got time for one more round of questions. But before we get to 01:05:34.170 --> 01:05:35.940 that, just want to say thank you, for the audience for being 01:05:35.940 --> 01:05:39.120 so brilliant and sending in so many questions. Don't worry if 01:05:39.120 --> 01:05:42.360 we don't manage to answer every single question. Today, we'll 01:05:42.360 --> 01:05:45.360 make sure they get answered behind the scenes after the 01:05:45.360 --> 01:05:48.150 webinar. So we will make sure that is done. And also just to 01:05:48.150 --> 01:05:52.050 say please, we'll send an email out with a survey, that should 01:05:52.050 --> 01:05:54.540 be in your inboxes. Now, if you could take a couple of minutes 01:05:54.540 --> 01:05:57.570 to fill in that survey, that questionnaire that will be great 01:05:57.570 --> 01:05:59.430 for us, it just means that we make sure we give you the 01:05:59.430 --> 01:06:03.210 webinars that are best suited for you that meet your needs the 01:06:03.210 --> 01:06:07.140 most. So thank you in advance for me for doing that. So I'm 01:06:07.140 --> 01:06:10.200 going to give you two policy questions to end with policy 01:06:10.200 --> 01:06:13.590 related questions to the panel. And you can choose to answer one 01:06:13.590 --> 01:06:17.550 or both of those questions. We've had such diverse questions 01:06:17.550 --> 01:06:22.260 coming in. So one is from Brent, wait, and Brent asks to achieve 01:06:22.260 --> 01:06:26.190 Net Zero targets what is being taken into consideration, while 01:06:26.190 --> 01:06:31.350 minimising defence and military energy use? So do you think 01:06:31.350 --> 01:06:36.450 that's being considered enough by governments when they're 01:06:36.450 --> 01:06:39.780 talking about their net zero targets? And how can they do 01:06:39.780 --> 01:06:43.020 more on that side of things? And the other question I wanted to 01:06:43.020 --> 01:06:46.680 pick up was from John Gower, he said that has any work being 01:06:46.680 --> 01:06:50.520 done on equating the cost and success risks of fossil fuel 01:06:50.520 --> 01:06:53.280 power generation, or manufacturing with carbon 01:06:53.280 --> 01:06:57.180 capture against renewable power generation, because this could 01:06:57.180 --> 01:07:01.290 be useful for low income economies, for example, with 01:07:01.290 --> 01:07:04.320 fossil fuel reserves being helped to develop carbon 01:07:04.320 --> 01:07:09.030 capture. So it could be helpful for kind of lower income 01:07:09.060 --> 01:07:13.350 countries. So your thoughts there on kind of carbon capture 01:07:13.380 --> 01:07:17.610 risks versus renewable power generation or the issue about 01:07:17.820 --> 01:07:23.250 has kind of the energy needed for defence and military kind of 01:07:23.250 --> 01:07:28.050 activities been fully taken into account by different countries? 01:07:28.350 --> 01:07:31.380 And APEC, I'm going to start with you on these. And we're 01:07:31.380 --> 01:07:33.630 going to have to keep our answers quite brief. I'm afraid. 01:07:34.740 --> 01:07:38.190 Exelon, I'm afraid I don't know much about military spending, 01:07:38.190 --> 01:07:41.010 but I assume, and levels of fossil fuel consumption, I 01:07:41.010 --> 01:07:44.220 assume they're very high. But I'll leave that to someone who 01:07:44.220 --> 01:07:46.890 knows more than me, I think on carbon capture, you know, these 01:07:46.890 --> 01:07:51.120 technologies are still not developed enough, they're still 01:07:51.150 --> 01:07:53.910 very, very expensive, especially at the scale that would be 01:07:53.910 --> 01:07:57.210 needed. I think the fossil fuel industry, of course, is trying 01:07:57.210 --> 01:08:01.110 to promote them as much as possible. But if you look at the 01:08:01.110 --> 01:08:04.680 institutions that are analysing these longer term scenarios, you 01:08:04.680 --> 01:08:07.620 know, they do build in some of these unproven untested 01:08:07.620 --> 01:08:11.940 technologies in the longer term. But ideally, you know, in terms 01:08:11.940 --> 01:08:16.980 of more from a risk, but more emphasis on renewable solutions, 01:08:17.250 --> 01:08:21.180 and of course, the one carbon capture technology that we can 01:08:21.210 --> 01:08:24.330 use at scale, which is trees. And so there is a lot of work to 01:08:24.330 --> 01:08:28.950 be done in terms of limiting deforestation. And, you know, 01:08:29.010 --> 01:08:33.450 reforestation initiatives, etc. Where we know that the costs and 01:08:33.450 --> 01:08:37.260 the the workings of the of that technology how much more proven 01:08:37.260 --> 01:08:42.000 so a little bit of a distraction and a bit of an excuse for the 01:08:42.000 --> 01:08:45.420 prolonging of fossil fuel sectors. Of course, we should, 01:08:45.630 --> 01:08:48.240 you know, explore all of the options in the longer term to 01:08:48.240 --> 01:08:52.440 make sure that we avoid climate disaster, but we should not sway 01:08:52.440 --> 01:08:56.790 from the much more pragmatic and proven solutions of renewable 01:08:56.790 --> 01:09:00.300 technologies, you know, the costs of which have come down 01:09:00.510 --> 01:09:03.870 dramatically in recent years, bearing in mind, Mariano's 01:09:03.870 --> 01:09:07.110 perspective, point on, you know, of course, there is a cost of 01:09:07.110 --> 01:09:10.620 producing solar panels and wind turbines and all of these as 01:09:10.620 --> 01:09:14.400 well and and impact of that. But, yes, I think we should not 01:09:14.400 --> 01:09:16.590 put too much reliance on those technologies. 01:09:16.889 --> 01:09:24.269 Thanks. Thanks, Michael, your final thoughts on this? We need 01:09:24.269 --> 01:09:25.619 to get off me. Thanks, Michael. 01:09:27.270 --> 01:09:33.180 Sorry. Yeah. So, look, defence is a is a challenge right. So 01:09:33.180 --> 01:09:38.280 they yes, they produce a lot, but it is very difficult to win 01:09:38.280 --> 01:09:43.800 the the discussion with their their perceived need need for 01:09:43.800 --> 01:09:48.930 protection and defence and security versus climate and I 01:09:48.930 --> 01:09:54.780 think in the current environment, and at this stage 01:09:54.810 --> 01:09:58.920 is likely to be only one winner in that in that discussion. I 01:09:58.920 --> 01:10:01.770 think there will be Future that there's a greater focus on 01:10:01.770 --> 01:10:04.620 climate and I think the particularly the ancillary areas 01:10:04.620 --> 01:10:10.950 around defence, you know, bases and etc, we'll we'll get there, 01:10:10.950 --> 01:10:14.970 but it is a, it is probably, you know, they have other other 01:10:14.970 --> 01:10:18.720 objectives ahead that that lie ahead. I think the other bit in 01:10:18.720 --> 01:10:22.440 terms of developing markets, I think, and fossil fuels, I mean, 01:10:22.440 --> 01:10:26.370 that is just going to take longer. And because you've got 01:10:26.370 --> 01:10:29.430 to, you've got a funding issue, as well as that reliance. 01:10:29.580 --> 01:10:32.910 However, I think the point you made was well made, I mean, it 01:10:32.910 --> 01:10:36.750 is getting cheaper to shift over it is, you know, and, you know, 01:10:36.750 --> 01:10:40.110 if if you structure these properly, use the supports that 01:10:40.110 --> 01:10:43.800 are available from from the development banks, and, you 01:10:43.800 --> 01:10:47.310 know, and every, all that is there, in order to push these 01:10:47.340 --> 01:10:51.330 things forward, well, then you can start that transition, and 01:10:51.330 --> 01:10:54.240 it's got to start somewhere. But it is going to be slower than 01:10:54.240 --> 01:10:57.960 than probably people would like, but that's that's the nature of 01:10:57.960 --> 01:11:00.630 it. But it does have to start. And I think there's lots of 01:11:01.050 --> 01:11:03.210 supports in order to can make that happen. 01:11:04.020 --> 01:11:07.470 Thanks, Michael, Mariano, your your final thoughts on these 01:11:07.500 --> 01:11:08.250 issues. 01:11:09.210 --> 01:11:12.900 So my final thought would not be very positive. First is that 01:11:12.900 --> 01:11:17.550 climate seems to be a residual of other actions. The big 01:11:18.000 --> 01:11:23.730 economies are trying to secure resources, for example, lithium 01:11:23.790 --> 01:11:28.800 mines are only in several places in the world. Therefore, defence 01:11:28.800 --> 01:11:33.480 spending to secure those places or to get to those in a 01:11:33.480 --> 01:11:37.650 realistic perspective are not going to diminish but maybe even 01:11:37.650 --> 01:11:43.110 increased. With that said, climate may be like the second 01:11:43.110 --> 01:11:50.430 order, concern and not the first one to tackle. On the positive 01:11:50.430 --> 01:11:55.710 side, several military powers have minima, for example, for 01:11:55.710 --> 01:12:00.870 biodiesel use. So they they try to incorporate some sort of 01:12:01.410 --> 01:12:05.970 limiting the carbon emissions. I know that the US, I think it's 01:12:05.970 --> 01:12:09.030 20%, that has to be biodiesel. Don't quote me on that, but 01:12:09.030 --> 01:12:12.360 there is a minimum of us. So they they are acknowledging that 01:12:12.360 --> 01:12:15.330 they have to reduce their own carbon footprint. 01:12:16.230 --> 01:12:18.900 Thanks, very. Christiana, we started with you're gonna end 01:12:18.900 --> 01:12:22.200 with you, Can you are you as pessimistic? Or have you got 01:12:22.200 --> 01:12:23.700 some optimism in there as well. 01:12:25.050 --> 01:12:29.070 So I by nature, a bit more optimistic. But I think the task 01:12:29.070 --> 01:12:33.300 is very challenging. And in addition to all these trade offs 01:12:33.300 --> 01:12:36.450 that we've been discussing about on the technology side, on the 01:12:36.450 --> 01:12:40.080 funding side, I think one element that is also very 01:12:40.080 --> 01:12:43.230 important and cannot be minimised is the social impact 01:12:43.230 --> 01:12:46.740 of this transition. And I think they're I want to emphasise that 01:12:46.740 --> 01:12:51.000 really, the commission is very vocal about that. And I think 01:12:51.000 --> 01:12:54.930 that's also partly why the change is so gradual, because we 01:12:55.020 --> 01:12:59.640 have to make sure that, you know, the economic adjustment is 01:12:59.670 --> 01:13:04.980 is as fair as possible. But in that it is not easy to do. So I 01:13:04.980 --> 01:13:07.140 would end on this note. 01:13:07.560 --> 01:13:10.530 Thanks, Christiana. And I'm afraid that brings us to the end 01:13:10.530 --> 01:13:13.770 of the discussion. So a fantastic discussion there. And 01:13:13.770 --> 01:13:17.100 I think it just shows as you all kind of set out in your opening 01:13:17.250 --> 01:13:19.860 remarks, really, that a lot has been done, we have made 01:13:19.860 --> 01:13:23.370 progress, countries are making progress. But undeniably, I 01:13:23.370 --> 01:13:25.740 think there's still huge challenges ahead, and still a 01:13:25.740 --> 01:13:28.890 lot more that people need to be doing and civil servants and 01:13:28.890 --> 01:13:32.460 public servants will all play their part in that. And I think 01:13:32.460 --> 01:13:34.650 it's really interesting that those big issues around 01:13:34.650 --> 01:13:37.800 inequality and justice and fairness and the transition, 01:13:38.040 --> 01:13:41.790 have all come up so much in this conversation. So thank you so 01:13:41.790 --> 01:13:44.640 much for the audience sending in their questions. Thank you to 01:13:44.640 --> 01:13:48.180 our fantastic panel to Mariano to APEC, to Michael and 01:13:48.180 --> 01:13:51.270 Christiana, thank you for sharing so much of your time and 01:13:51.270 --> 01:13:55.590 expertise with us. And to all of the audience, we will be sending 01:13:55.590 --> 01:13:58.860 you a link with a video of this conversation. So you can watch 01:13:58.860 --> 01:14:02.100 it all again, at your leisure, you can share it with colleagues 01:14:02.220 --> 01:14:06.930 as well. And they will also be a write up of the key issues that 01:14:06.930 --> 01:14:10.110 came out of the conversation today. And that will be with you 01:14:10.290 --> 01:14:13.830 in a week or so as time. So thank you so much for me 01:14:13.830 --> 01:14:16.980 wherever you are around the world today and thank you to our 01:14:16.980 --> 01:14:20.250 knowledge partner, Deloitte. And I hope that we see you all again 01:14:20.280 --> 01:14:23.760 at another webinar very soon. Thanks, everybody, and enjoy the 01:14:23.760 --> 01:14:24.480 rest of the day.