[MUSIC] The key target that was established by the Paris Agreement is what you can read on the screen. Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 degrees centigrades above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees centigrades above pre-industrial levels. This is what the Paris Agreement codes for. However, the Paris Agreement did not simultaneously approve a plan of action that would allow for reaching this target. Instead, it relied on so-called INDCs, Independently Nationally-Determined Commitments. Each country committed itself to something which they believed they could do. And when we add up all these commitments, the result is that we are very far from achieving the objective that was fixed in Paris. So there is a gap in between having established ambitious objective and at the same time countries not being ready to commit to achieving that, collectively or individually. So, there is an expectation that as the process continues, countries will progressively accept more demanding commitments, will commit themselves more seriously to this process. But this has not been taking place for the time being. In parallel with the multilateral process that led to the Paris Agreement, we have had a process that engages primarily scientists. This is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, which was created in 1988 by two UN agencies, notably the World Meteorogical Organization and the United Nations Environmental Program. The IPCC generates regular assessments on the scientific basis of climate change. It is basically a process of cooperation among scientists. But at the end of the process, when the assessment is ready, when reports are ready to be published, they are discussed with the representative of the governments and must be approved by representative of the governments. The fifth assessment report established by the IPCC was published in 2014. And the next one is expected to be published in 2022. In the meantime, in 2018, the IPCC published a special report in preparation for COP24, which took place in Katowice in Poland. And that report focused on what would be necessary to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees centigrades as requested by the Paris Agreement. You can see in the next graph the position of the scientists that prepare this report. They present four pathways or four alternative scenarios, if you wish, for the future. Which are distinguished based on the fact that there is or there is not an overshooting. The first scenario on the left has no overshooting the others have some overshooting, progressively bigger, as we move to the right. Overshooting means that we may be, in fact, passing, going beyond the threshold of greenhouse gas emissions that is coherent, compatible with 1.5 degrees temperature increase. But then, later, we take measures that allow us to reabsorb some of the greenhouse gasses emitted, in other words we would have negative emissions in order to recover on the last ground. The first scenario with no overshooting, as you can clearly see, entails a very dramatic decline of reliance on fossil fuels. A dramatic decline which is probably simply not feasible in practice. And as we move to the right, the decline in using fossil resources is less steep, remains very steep in all scenarios really, even in the fourth one. But it's pushed back in time, so we have some more time to achieve it. And that is compensated by policies relating to the use of land, which basically means increasing the surface devoted to forests because forests have the capability of absorbing CO2. And reliance on carbon capture and sequestration which are technologies that allow us to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and inject it into the ground or reutilize it for industrial processes. All of these pathways are highly controversial, and this justifies the fact that governments at COP24 in Katowice did not endorse this report. They simply agreed to take notice of it, which in diplomatic jargon is little more than ignoring. In any case, we need to keep in mind that the environment is not the only goal that we need to pursue. The World Energy Council, which is an association of energy actors, enterprises and others at the global level, has been speaking of the energy trilemma. In other words, of the fact that we have at least three main objectives that we need to reach. One is preservation of the environment. The other is accessibility and affordability of energy. And the third is energy security of supply. These three objectives are enshrined also in the so-called Agenda for Sustainable Development that the United Nations approved in 2015. Which establishes 17 Sustainable Development Goals that need to be achieved by 2030. Of this 17 goals, one, goal number 7, is specifically about energy, and it promises affordable and clean energy for all. It is articulated into five targets that you can see, again, on the screen. The first one is very clear by 2030. Ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services. The other targets relate to increasing the share of renewable energy, improve energy efficiency, facilitate the transmission of energy technology. And, finally, expand infrastructure and upgrade technology for supplying modern and sustainable energy services for all in developing countries. There are other important sustainable development targets which are not related directly to energy but have an impact on our energy decisions. The third target is about Good Health and Well Being. And this calls for substantially reducing the number of deaths from air pollution, and main cause of air pollution is energy consumption. The 13th target calls for urgent action to combat climate change and its impact, so, again, climate change. And other targets relate to eradicating poverty. And we know that energy poverty is a very important aspect of poverty, providing access to clean water, which is not possible in many cases without sufficient energy. And, finally, also fostering gender equality because normally energy poverty creates conditions that are especially unfavorable to women. In short, we believe that the United Nations believe that energy must support sustainable development, and climate change is part and parcel of sustainable development. But sustainable development is more than just reducing greenhouse gases emission and maintaining global temperature. Thus we can say that multilateral diplomacy has been very active in the past few years, with conferences of the parties every year, but progress is slow, sometimes very slow. Some countries have backed out of international agreements. This has been the case for the United States on the Trump administration that has denounced the Paris Agreement or simply refuse to engage to the extent required. Because they have submitted commitments that are not sufficient to reach the Agreed upon all. So, we have a pattern of fixing ambitious targets but without, at the same time, having a credible agreement to implement them. And this raises danger that the credibility of the process may be undermined. Because when we reach the time when those targets should have been achieved, we will see that we haven't achieved them. And so, what is the credibility of this process? So, tensions between what would need to be done and what realistically we may expect will be done will persist. And this is a source of political tension, both internationally and within each country. We may ask, what kind of climate catastrophe will need to take place before governments become serious about what they promise? Governments have approved the target but they are not doing what is needed in order to achieve it. So, is this going to change because of some catastrophic event? Or is it not going to change even in the face of a catastrophic event? That's a very difficult question to answer.
