If we look at the last three years where this campaign has been running,
this very nice campaign has been running, what is the two most important thing
that has actually happened within the climate field as we see it?
Well, first of all, we have to recognize that we didn't get a
Biden legal agreement in 2009, we didn't get it in Mexico,
and we won't get it in South Africa, or we won't get it in the next 10 years.
That's a pure fact. If you look at the political situation in the US,
China, and many other places, it's simple, not possible.
And it's not possible due to that simple reason that no politician might be
from a regime like China or by the US, the European Union.
No political, no politician can go to the voters and say,
we will actually adopt legal Biden rules before they know how to make it,
and before they assure that they can combine that development with their own
nuclear systems, because they won't get elected if they are not able to convince
their own voters about that fact. And then, of course, we have some very
significant systems around the world, but that's the last talk.
Basically, we won't get what we all were screaming about.
This big international agreement, this big global tax and CO2 or whatever,
which would be the most efficient, cheap and right way.
We have to recognize that the way to the sustainable future will be a big,
big password where local initiatives from municipalities,
initiatives from the private sector, national initiatives, regional initiatives,
will just push the process. Now, the good news is that this is actually happening.
That when we are, I mean, you could stay up every morning crying for the lack
of political will within this people, but it could also go every morning
being very happy about what's actually taking place.
And that's due to another very important development in the last three years,
and that is the price development of all raw materials and raw resources.
You know, of course, the story about the oil prices,
but you might not know the story about the coal prices,
which have also really developed rapidly in the last 14 months,
actually 60% increase in price. Same goes for metals,
6% more metals, 80% in price increase.
That goes for food, you know, and meat, I think last year was close to 80%,
probably more now. That jump, the food in general, China,
India, increased price of 30% and so forth.
Now, this is, if you look at the analyzer, how come that these prices
have come to the market? In the US and Europe,
we still have an economic crisis, but it's probably due to two facts.
If you look at the analyzers from North Korea,
the European peace or concedural or global world wide foundation,
no, the analyzers from Deutsche Bank, from the American Central Bank,
from Nükrätin, Denmark, they are all very, very clear in the sequence.
One, the demand is expecable from the emergency governments,
two, the supply is going down due to climate changes.
So this is a situation which will continue at the price development
and all resources will make the revolution we are all dreaming about,
not the political changes as far as we see it.
But there is an enormous risk that if we don't cope with these price development
in the right political way, we will have very, very big social advances
in the world and we will also have big problems in the market.
Looking at oil, the first thing that happens if oil prices go up,
it's not that everybody in this small green renewable solutions.
No, everybody will be in this small tar set.
These two developments, these two reconclusions I see,
one is we need dramatically, dramatically to rely on existing technologies
within the next 10 years.
You have just mentioned the problems that could be mentioned with any other
renewable stones such upon that.
How do you do that?
If you have to cope with national and regional delay,
then might be you and you can't rely on the global.
How do you do that?
Which policies are the right of the policies?
Well, as we see it, there's no way out of looking at green taxes.
And there's no way out of making quite big reforms
of our present tax regimes where we put down taxes on income
and we put down taxes on resources in a social balanced way.
So that's something we're doing very much into to force the market
into the race, even before the market itself.
Secondly, I think for the future, probably no more about it,
but when we look at figures that should be invested,
we talk about one, maybe two percent of GDP,
and you look at how much the states actually have to deal with
when it comes to public investments.
It's very clear that even if we take all the public states' budgets
and we take the World Bank, we take GDP and we take all we have,
and even if we agree next year to do it a little better,
we are very, very far from the amount we need to be invested.
So we can certainly do this without private investments.
We need the big institutional investors to get involved in this
and we need to convince them about that what they should do with the money now
is exactly in renewables, energy efficiency and so forth.
We have many institutional investors in our member group,
so we're discussing a lot with them.
And they want to understand this because to figure out good business,
they see the increased prices for my own phone as well.
They believe the future is in wind, energy efficiency and so on,
but of course the risk of the markets and especially the risk of the emerging markets
in the developing countries where the demand and the need for investments are biggest,
the risks are also the biggest.
So how do we create a new public-private partnership where we kind of secure
some of the public investments but get really dominant
and huge amounts of money allocated for the private big council funds into this?
That's not a key question as I see it.
The third key question is a small...
I mean, when I started working with this issue for 20 years now,
when we started, all our phones was in energy and it is a very, very important focus.
If I should be a little provoking, I would say,
I think we are the right track when it comes to energy,
because it's better than the market, because it's good business
and because most of the states know we have to move this direction.
Of course, we have big enemies in the oil banks, but it's not easy.
We have to do a lot more.
But energy sectors, especially in the developing world,
is moving in the right direction in this also good and cultured business.
Now, if we were making that tomorrow, we found a solution like that,
so our transportation, all the intrusive world,
came from the summit in tomorrow.
We would have solved a little more than half of the problem
when it comes to greenhouse gases.
Almost half of the greenhouse gases still comes from land use
and cultural products and so forth.
So I think that we also have to look much more into how to reuse our land,
how to combine our future energy demands, biomass demands,
with our food production.
And here comes the warning that's probably the most important lesson.
One example, bioethanol, which we used in our earlier program,
did you know that it takes between 80 and 100 liters of water
to produce one liter of bioethanol, besides all the energy it takes?
Is that a stable path?
What about the biomass?
We all work for biomass big time now.
We get things out of the equation.
If the whole universe does that, and they will,
it's a sustainable biomass enough, or should be used in our plastic production as well.
So a little more, I would say, started on the relationship
between sustainable land use and stable energy
will probably be as well in the next 10 years.
So, new taxes, more private investments,
and more focus on the land use issue,
will be used together in the future for our future.
Thank you.
