Davos 2024: Climate and Nature: A Systemic Response Needed

Gim Huay Neo, Managing Director, World Economic Forum Geneva: My name is Gim Huay Neo, your Managing Director at the World Economic Forum.

Humanity is in a crisis. Climate change is actually not new. Scientists have been warning us about that for decades. What is new is that humanity is now experiencing the limits and the effects with more intensity and frequency. 2023 was the hottest year on record. And we all know someone or heard of someone who has experienced more extreme droughts, more extreme rainfalls, heat waves, wildfires and these effects will get worse as the Earth gets closer and even crosses the tipping points.

We added 1.4 degrees Celsius last year, and we will likely exceed 1.5 over the next few years, because of El Nino effects and also the accumulation of carbon emissions.

And scientists are now telling us, that even in the most optimistic of all scenarios, we are headed for an overshoot of 1.6, 1.7 degrees, decades of climatic disruptions, upheavals and catastrophes.

What does this mean for the food we eat? The water we drink the homes and the lifestyles we have? What does it mean for our children, their children, the people we love? What does it mean for the things we care about?

Some of you in the audience would have heard of the Chinese translation for the word crisis - weihe - and you know that wei means danger, he means opportunity. So in in crisis, in danger, we can find opportunity.

But, because we're in a climate emergency, I really want to just talk about opportunity today. I want to push the panellists a little bit more to talk about systems change. The levers we need to pull. The buttons we need to press, maybe the silver bullet, the magic one, the heroes and the heroines we need to produce big changes in everything and turn the tide of history.

So, today I'd like to introduce you to another Chinese phrase, tete which is that we actually need miracles. So my challenge to the panellists today, and I'm giving them a few minutes to think about it, is what are these system change levers that we need to create the miracle?

In oriental medicine now we talk about acupuncture points, you would have heard of it, some of you, and by stimulating some of these key acupuncture points we can correct imbalances and blockages in the flow of energy through the human body and ultimately restore health and well-being.

So here I'm talking about acupuncture points in our social, economic and political systems that can unlock human potential and human creativity, to restore humanity's harmony with nature.

What are the systemic responses? What are the acupuncture points, we need to ensure that we can continue to enjoy as a species for the next seven generations?

We have a distinguished panel with us today: Katharine Hayhoe, climate scientist; Ajay Banga, President of the World Bank, Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director of the IMF, Jesper Brodin from IKEA ,and Andre Hoffman, who is a philanthropist as well as a family business owner.

Let me start with Katherine. You're a climate scientist. You crunch data, you analyze models, you provide evidence that climate change is happening, human beings are the cause of it. And more importantly, some of you would know her, she's one of the most effective communicators on climate change around.

So my question to you is twofold. One is can you help explain to this audience how to think about the environmental crisis? Because when businesses and governments talk about carbon emissions can they also connect the nexus to water to nature, to the ocean to land use to people? That's the first part of my question. The second part of my question is how can we make this into a conversation that all politicians, regardless of their political affiliations, will care about, and that will help them win votes on the ground?

Katharine Hayhoe, Climate Scientist, Distinguished Professor and Endowed Chair in Public Policy, Texas Tech University: I should say that, to the last question, that one of the reasons why I live in Texas is to figure out the answer to that question.

So the way I think about our current challenge is like this, for years, centuries, even millennia, we have been living as if our planet were flat and infinite.

And what I mean by that is that we have been living as if there was always somewhere new to go when we need more. And there's always somewhere to put our waste when we create it. But we don't live on an infinite flat planet, I know you could probably find a few people on YouTube who claim we do, but most of us know that we live on a round finite planet with over 8 billion people. And so to me, the phrase sustainability is so basic, it just means living as if the planet were round, which it is.

So we can find multiple crises today that all stem from the overuse of nature's resources and climate change is one of those. We've known since the 1800s that digging up and burning coal, back then, oil and gas today, produces heat trapping gases that are causing the planet to warm.

This year was the warmest on record. But it was entirely in line with what scientists have been predicting since the first climate model was calculated by hand in the 1890s. So this is no surprise. But it is still shocking to see the droughts, the wildfires, the hurricanes and cyclones play out live in front of our eyes affecting people and places that we know and love. It hits us in a different place. It's not just about our head any more, it's about our hearts.

So that relates to the second part of your question, how do we have these conversations? As scientists, we live primarily in the head, so to speak, data, facts information. But in order to understand why it matters to each of us, we have to help people connect this crisis and all the other crises with the overuse of our planet, the biodiversity crisis looming right behind the climate crisis. We need to help people connect it with what they already care about.

And if we don't know what that is, we have to figure out what it is by asking them questions and listening to the answers.

But even that isn't sufficient because we can have the whole world worried. And actually most of the world is already worried about climate change. The majority of people around the world are worried. But if we don't know what to do, we'll do nothing.

So the last step is, and this is why I'm so excited to have this panel here today, the last step is we have to help people connect their heads to their hearts to their hands.

What do real climate solutions look like? And Jesper and I were at an event just this morning that was all about asking everyone in the room, what solution is your organization taking that you are proud of? And you can hear dozens, even hundreds of these solutions these days. And this is really the key to our future, talking about, sharing and implementing solutions at every scale.

Gim Huay Neo, Managing Director, World Economic Forum Geneva: Let me turn to Ajay. You assumed the role of president of the World Bank about six months ago, the middle of last year, and one of the first things you did was to review the vision of the World Bank to connect the alleviation of poverty with a livable planet.

The World Bank has been around for 70 years. It is the world's largest development organization, you're involved with more than 100 developing emerging countries, 12,000 projects since the beginning. You've described the World Bank as a knowledge bank, as a money bank, because you give grants and loans, but you also transfer knowledge and best practices. I think that's great.

But a common criticism of the World Bank is that the organization is too bureaucratic. Processes take too long to reach the people who need help desperately. But I understand why because with an organization as large as the World Bank it's not easy to be fast and agile. You cannot be because you need to protect governance and system integrity. So if I may bring in another Chinese phrase, when the mountains are high, the emperor is far away, meaning it's hard to know what's really going on on the ground.

And I'd like to ask you, how do you think about systems change within an organization as large as the World Bank, as powerful as the World Bank, to make sure that whatever changes you're making actually really translate to what is being felt on the ground? And how would you think about the role of the bank in catalysing new growth model partnerships with other organizations to stimulate change within the broader social, economic and governance systems that we have today?

Ajay S. Banga, President, World Bank Group: A journey fueled by hope is realized by deeds. So merely saying that I've got a new way of thinking about things, or announcing policy pronouncements will not change the reality of what we face on the ground every day.

What we have is an existential climate. crisis. We cannot think about eradicating poverty without caring about climate. We cannot think about eradicating poverty without our caring about health care. We cannot think about eradicating poverty without caring about food insecurity and fragility. If you don't like it. Tough luck. This is the reality that we have a set of intertwined crises.

And so when the World Bank changed its vision to go from eradicating poverty, important, but eradicating poverty on a livable planet, what we're doing is embracing those challenges and widening the aperture with which the bank and its people look at the challenges we have.

The reality is we cannot afford another set of decades of emissions-heavy growth. That's just the reality. So since we're talking about climate for a minute at COP28, and this tells you the kinds of things that can be done to change, the World Bank made five commitments. The first one is 45% of our financing would go towards climate financing by 2025, not 2050, by 2025, because I think a sense of urgency is our only saviour in this current circumstance.

By the way, we were already running at about 35, so 45 is ambitious, but not crazy. It's entirely possible. More importantly, half of that would go to mitigation emissions, but half of that would go to adaptation, because the developing world sees climate from a slightly different lens from the effect rather than the cause. And those of us in the developing world who tend to see climate only from emissions, we are missing the opportunity of engaging the hearts and minds of people all over the world in what matters to them on the ground every day. So that's the first thing.

The second thing we announced is that we will connect 100 million people in Africa to renewable power by 2030. So we announced 100, I'm actually working on 200. There are 600 million people in Africa without access to electricity. That to me, that's a human right. If you do not have electricity, you have nothing. So 200 million people, if the bank can get by 2030, not alone, our money, other public sector money, and most importantly, the private sector's money is required to make this happen.

Third, we've talked about methane. Methane from flaring is known. But rice paddy cultivation, waste management and dairy husbandry can help you enormously with combating methane. Methane is 80 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide. It gets only 2% of climate financing today. We have a misalignment with what we need to focus on. We're talking about working with 15 countries and taking out 10 million tonnes of methane by focusing on rice paddy, on animal and dairy and on waste management.

Fourth, small countries cannot absorb the impact of a catastrophe. They can lose, even if they're wealthy, they can lose double digits of their GDP in the course of a few hours. We're going to give them the chance not to pay back loans or to ask for two years, including the interest ,and we'll fund that cost, because we have to be there for them in their bad days, not just in their good days.

And the last part is we're going to venture, eyes wide open, into helping carbon credits, voluntary carbon markets and carbon credits in forestry projects where we are involved, where we can guarantee the environmental credit, but also the social value, meaning the money goes to the community, not just to the government.

These are five things. We're not doing them alone. I'm doing them in partnership with Kristalina. I'm doing them in partnership, with the Inter-American Development Bank. I'm doing them in partnership with the private sector. Jesper can talk to you about what the private sector does.

These challenges are too big for any one of us to think that we can do it ourselves. That would be a travesty if we tried to do that. We have to get together because in being together is our chance to win. So back to where I started. A journey fueled by hope is realized by deeds. Don't forget that.

Gim Huay Neo, Managing Director, World Economic Forum Geneva: Thank you. Kristalina and Ajay alluded to it, in fact, we are delighted that we have the World Bank and IMF on stage together, but more importantly to talk about climate and nature.
Because there are many things you can choose to talk about in Davos. Right? But the fact that the two of you actually prioritize climate and nature gives us hope. And if you can work together by combining policy with finance and knowledge, I think we have many more ingredients available to support the transition to a better future.

I would like to ask for your reflections on policy, because obviously good policy, good governance are one of the key levers for systems change. And you've been in this role for four years now. There's been a surge in government interest in climate transition and nature issues over the last four years, especially. COP28. You were there. Hundreds of global leaders met, right? We've never seen such strong momentum, but progress is still too slow, right? We are not ambitious enough. We are not implementing fast enough.

And I'd like you to share some reflections on what are the policy measures that have worked, but more importantly, what are the ones that really desperately need to get going? Right? And between the COPs, governments need to do their homework. So what is the homework and advice that you will give to all governments from the IMF perspective?

Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund: Let me first join Ajay by saying that, we first and foremost need to come together and Ajay, in front of my board of directors, said World Bank and IMF, one plus one makes three. And I would argue that we have to have the ambition to make it four or 5 or 6.

And that is my most important message to everybody: that together we can succeed. What was COP28 for all of us? It was the COP of hope, because results exceeded expectations. And that was the outcome of actions taken by governments, by private sector, by international organizations.

Al Gore, who, of course, is the champion of this cause, today said in a meeting that political will, which is what made actions possible, is a renewable resource. It doesn't get charged by the sun or the wind. It gets charged by the success of our actions.

So when we look into the year ahead and years to follow, I want to concentrate on three actions that, from our expertise, from a policy standpoint, are paramount.

Action number one, we know that today our collective commitments and nationally determined contributions, collectively, they fall around 50% short of where we have to be by 2030. Lift up ambition and front load action. So we need to breathe in the necks of governments. They have to do that and we as an institution can help them to cost it and plan it together with the World Bank. So it is not a, you know, dream. It is doable.

Action number two. I am sick and tired of listening to people saying, oh God, it's so expensive. Where are we going to find the money? We are talking about getting to 5 trillion, by the end of the decade. Last year, the world spent more than $7 trillion in direct and indirect fossil fuel subsidies. 1.3 trillion direct fossil fuel subsidies. Pull this back and put it to support climate action.

And then look into the indirect subsidies that are health costs, but also not pricing carbon.

At the Fund, I am now going to blue in the face saying that we cannot accelerate globalization fast enough without pricing carbon with predictable increase of carbon price. It has to be $85 by 2030. If we just collect the equivalent on the 25% of emissions today priced, we would get about 800 billion. If we priced 50% of emissions, we would get 1.5 trillion.

So my point is, let's get to bringing resources, taking them from where they hurt, putting them where they help.

And my third and last point is for each and every one of us to do what Ajay did and, you know, bravo Ajay, be clear in what you pledge and do what you say.

For us at the Fund, what we pledge is first to bring climate in macro policy discussions. Emission reduction for countries that are high emitters. Adaptation for vulnerable countries. And we are doing it. Country after country.

Work with countries on how they can deal with financial sector risks due to climate shocks. And we are a financial institution, put money where our mouth is. We have now 40 billion in long-term financing. First time in the history of the IMF we have lent 20 years grace concessional terms for middle-income, vulnerable middle-income countries and low-income countries. And guess what? Last year we started one year we have done 16 programmes and it was the World Bank that gave us the foundation, the analytical foundation, to do so.

What I commit is that the IMF will be systematically engaged with the private sector, with other organizations, with governments, because we are today, we are systemically significant institution in the fight against climate change and we will continue that fight.

Gim Huay Neo, Managing Director, World Economic Forum Geneva: Thank you. Christine. I think it's a good time for me to bring in the corporate voice. Jesper you are the co-chair for the Alliance of CEO Climate Leaders at the World Economic Forum there are more than 130 of you. Collectively, your emissions, scope one, two, three, is almost equivalent to that of the United States.

So you are a powerful group, committed to SBT, science based targets, which is that commitment to net zero by 2030, 2050. You're not just mobilizing your peers, you are also leading by example. And I think to the points by Ajay and Kristalina, the important thing is action and deeds. IKEA has been able to demonstrate business growth while cutting absolute emissions. And that's very impressive, right? Because we know that the growth that we've experienced over the years has been powered with an overconsumption of Earth's finite resources, 1.75 times what we need, right, 1.575 to 1.75 times of planet Earth's resources.

And the big question that companies have to navigate is, can they continue to grow? Can they continue to generate profits? While reducing, cutting emissions. Stop depleting natural resources, meaning give Earth time to regenerate itself. And a key lever is obviously innovation and that's where I would like to poke you a little bit, because it essentially means we have to build new economic models, new businesses, and possibly new lifestyles of humanity that are good, just as good or even better than what we have today. And you have been at IKEA for almost three decades now, right? And IKEA is known as a company that has been innovating on many fronts..

You reinvented furniture shopping. So now even families take it as a weekly outing, right? You've, created modular furniture. So every one of us can build our own furniture at home, living solutions, the list goes on. And I'd like you to reflect a little bit on what is that secret sauce that we could potentially learn from what you've experienced, what you're leading within your company, and help us apply this secret sauce to the possibilities of our future. So one way we can have our cake and eat it too. Jesper.

Jesper Brodin, Chief Executive Officer, Ingka Group (IKEA): Speaker 7: Wow. Thank you so much. Thank you to everybody on the stage. And, it's an honour to be here. Thank you for hosting us.

That was a big question to start with. But I think it's the right one. Let me maybe start by just expressing, like I tried to connect both my mind on this topic, but it was my heart on it.

This is the decade we have all understood. This is the decade when it needs to shift. It needs to change. It is a decade of both outrage, but also, hope and optimism. And I see it with, this strange mix of sentiments, both, incredible optimism, but also doubts and fears for the future. But if I, if I start with the reasoning from a corporate perspective, and I know that there are so many corporate leaders that share my view on why this is important for us.

And so if I start with the rationale, how could it be possible to build a future business model on the depletion of nature, resources, people? It's simply the absolute worst idea. So, that doesn't mean that the transition and transformation is easy. There can be incremental changes. But I do believe that all of us need to go through a massive transformation.

When I look at IKEA, where many people, many companies and a huge network, if you look at the total Scope Three, the secret sauce is leadership, leadership to accept the responsibility, to commit, if you like, without having all the answers based on the knowledge that the alternative is absolutely unthinkable.

If I look at the economic rationale, which is one of the greatest myths today, is that sustainability and climate would come at a premium. If you followed that route, obviously, we'd only be a few rich people who could afford doing it. Right. So what we're actually doing, what we're talking about here together on the stage is the biggest reformation and transformation of the economy, we have seen. AI is super exciting and interesting, but it's minuscule compared to the complete shift of economy that we are accepting and being in the front line of leading, resource smart.

Nature smart. Climate smart is cost smart. So the opposite is not true.

To start with, carbon is not only a huge, existential problem for humanity, it's the biggest, cost factor in any value chain. And then you can say again, there are some low-hanging fruit and some transformations and need for collaboration, but that is the truth of fact.

I will humbly share the number. I say so because of course, you never know what's around the corner. But if you look at IKEA's total footprint on a total growth since 2016, since, the amazing Paris Agreement, we are 30.9% business growth. So it's okay. We are 24.3% absolute carbon reduction, not relative, absolute carbon reduction.

Now, it tells me three things when I say that. One, it's possible it's not an illusion or an idea. It's a fact. Secondly, it tells me it is good business to be a good business. Three it tells me, saying that it means I'm incredibly committed to the future. Of course, we are half ways to the half reduction by 2030, and there's so many challenges.

So the road is going to be bumpy, but it's going to be downhill from here.

I believe the companies in the, for instance, in the World Economic Forum Climate Alliance, these are the brands and companies that you will see in five, ten, 15, 20 years from now. The companies who are left on the station waiting are getting very close to the too-late factor.

But we need more. We need more people to test and try. We need more people who, as Katherine, I spoke to this morning who embrace taking action, sharing, and collaborating in new ways because the problem is far too big.

And if you ask me what the miracle is, maybe some different miracles that needs to happen, but we need the energy sector to take full responsibility. Because even if I'm incredibly optimistic after COP, all the achievements, ink on paper, which was a great achievement, was great progress, we are at the point where we know that a lot of sectors, industry, including the energy sector, are not enough committed, are not speaking out are not showing vulnerability for the unknown. And I still, as we have heard today, investing in the old economy. So basically when the car came throwing more horses at the problem wasn't a good idea, maybe temporarily. But what we're seeing right now is throwing a lot of horses when there is something totally new around the corner. So I would invite leaders to be courageous and say, not on my shift. I will be part of making this transformation. Thank you.

Gim Huay Neo, Managing Director, World Economic Forum Geneva: I'd like to turn to Andre. You come from an illustrious family. You're the fourth generation of a very successful family business. In fact, your father, Luc Hoffman. Was a conservationist. He set up the World Wildlife Fund, among various other conservation organizations. And you inherited your father's love for nature. You've been a key proponent for integrating nature in business, promoting business as a force for good.

And I would like you to speak to the notion of time, the intergenerational stewardship is it more intuitive in family businesses. Maybe it's not so obvious for companies and governments that have a very short life cycle. In fact, I read that this is coming down right. The term of a CEO is actually dropping.

And it is made worse by the fact that we are very much enabled by technology today. Right. Instant gratification. We prioritize all our short-term needs over long-term goals. Even though we know that delayed gratification can be a lot more rewarding and we know that slowly built success is actually a lot more solid, more trusted, more sustainable.

How would you reconcile the short and the long term? Not just wearing your hat as a family business owner, but also wearing the hats of CEOs who know that maybe they will no longer be in that job ten years, 15 years, or even shorter. And how can we incentivize long-term behaviours, long-term thinking so that businesses, governments, they always leave the place much better than what they took on and what they inherited?

Andre Hoffmann, Chairman, Massellaz SA: Well, thank you very much for this question. Which is, of course, a very wide question. First of all, at the age of 65, I'm delighted to hear that my father is always quoted when I'm presented. That's good news, I hope that the children of my children will have the same impact. That's good news.

But to the question of how are we going to be able to do something for the future of the way we construct businesses at the moment? Yes, the family ownership and the idea of thinking trangenerationally is I think a strong incentive. More than 20 years ago, we established a sustainability committee on our company and this sustainability committee has always been involved in thinking about the next generation. So we have the board which executes the budget. You have the directors who are constructing the five-year plan and you have the sustainability committee, which I chair, which does the 100-year plan.

And how can we sort of organize this in a way where we are using existing resources to be able to make a difference to what we do? So how do we do that? Very clearly, we need to reintroduce the notion of nature in the way we do business. Now, nature is not just the panda, which my father indeed protected with the Worldwide Fund for Nature, but it's also the question of a functioning economy. The idea of producing value without looking at the immediate consequences of what we're doing is a very short-term value.

Economists would talk about externalities, but externalities, once they are in the system, eventually come back to the people who started them. So we can create value in the short term for a couple of quarters and everybody will be very pleased with you. But if you don't look after the costs you have started, you're going to have to deal with them later. And IKEA is a wonderful example of that.

So how do we include nature into our business? By looking at the consequence of what we're doing by measuring impact. Now there's no investment without impact. We all know that. But we also need to make sure that we can understand the consequences and the dependencies that we have on the three main capitals: the social, the human and the natural.

The social we've just discussed in this panel, I don't think we need to go much further into it.

The natural capital is, you know, how can we regenerate? How can we go away from extraction and pollution to go into regeneration and the human capital, which I think is the one we need to all consider is how do we get towards happiness? How do we use the generation of the wealth generation that business provides in order to really get to that level where we are pleased with what we have, and not much more than that.

I know it sounds a little bit airy fairy, and I see a lot of eyes going to the sky in the audience. But for me, this notion that we have to pursue happiness is an incredibly important one.

Natural capital will suffer less and social capital even less if we do get, if you will go away from the institutional, where we behave in a way that we think is expected from us, when in fact we know that what we're doing is wrong.

This morning I was at a breakfast and somebody had this wonderful image saying, you know, we all want to eat healthily, but when you open the fridge, it's full of junk food. And I think our society really sort of, needs a bit of that. So you've been good Davos visitors this week. You've seen the statement of TNFD which is now used by more companies.

The attractive thing of this sort of measurement is that it gives you an idea to measure the dependencies that your businesses have. So the idea of a business that is completely independent of nature, I don't think it will go very far.

So, you know, you need to understand how much water you need, but the water supplies what will happen when you don't have it anymore? And how can you construct a future based on this?

So this intergenerational thinking helps us to sort of project this subject in the future.

Now, a lot of the things which I've heard until now are relevant in that context as well, you know, together possible. We need to unite all, family businesses of the planet. But we also need to realize that, a normal business also has a responsibility to our society. I mean, we are in Davos and in Davos, Professor Schwab, since the beginning, feels that we have to work for stakeholders and not for shareholders.

So, as a significant shareholder of a family company, I can tell you that if the company was only managed for me, we would not be where we are today. We are managing for the patient, and the patient is the one that really sort of should come out of this, winning.

So I don't know if that replies to your question, but a number of different other things we can talk about, of course, the sense of responsibility. Why did my father and some of my family spend so much time in philanthropy, because the system that we have built privileges a couple of people who have more funds than others and the idea of using that just to go and spend is not the right thing. With ownership comes responsibility and you have to do something about that. But as we heard, there's absolutely no way that philanthropy can solve the issue - we are talking trillions of dollars we have to move into a way which will influence businesses into a positive outcome for everybody. So let's make a distinction between shareholder and stakeholder and make sure that stakeholders benefit.

Gim Huay Neo, Managing Director, World Economic Forum: Thank you. I would like to probe all of you more on leadership. And I think, Jesper alluded to that, because you either influence large groups of people or you actually run large organizations. So you have a good view of how humans behave, carrots, incentives and so forth.

We've been running an annual risk survey, top risks confronting society and economy over the next ten years. Persistently environmental risks rank at the top. So we know, but there's a gap with practice.

What is missing? How do we bridge this gap between knowledge and practice? Because the people who are filling up the surveys, are 1200 leaders around the world. So they are the same people making decisions on a day-to-day basis. Any takers?

Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund: Well, I have a very simple, solution to this problem. Ajay actually applies the same solution. For all these leaders, I have one advice. Get your kids, and especially your grandchildren, if you have some, on your phone, put their picture there. And when you don't know what is the right thing to do, look at them and it'll come. It always comes to me. And I know it comes to Ajay.

We have a responsibility to be stewards of our beautiful small planet's future because this is the home for the future generations. We have to pass it to them the way we inherited it from our parents.

Gim Huay Neo, Managing Director, World Economic Forum: Thank you. Katherine?

Katharine Hayhoe, Climate Scientist, Distinguished Professor and Endowed Chair in Public Policy, Texas Tech University: A recent global survey conducted by Potential Energy asked people, are you worried or concerned about climate change? And they found again that most people were. And then they asked them, why do you care? And it will not surprise you or anyone to learn that the number one reason that people cited for why they cared all around the world, in all different countries was their children, their grandchildren, or the next generation. And when asked to express that in a single word, the word they chose was again and again love.

Gim Huay Neo, Managing Director, World Economic Forum Geneva: Thank you.

Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund: Can I also say one more thing? I'm sorry. I apologize, but I have been wrestling with this. That is also something that leaders need to embrace and it is responsibility to act even if it is not popular. Face it. Do it. Because of the signal we send. People look up to us. If we waver, if you say, oh, well, let me calculate, how is this going to affect my bottom line this year, this quarter? Then we are going to make mistakes. So leaders: step up.

Ajay S. Banga, President, World Bank Group: I think this is, in my new life and coming to where I am today, I think about this in a few different ways.

And the first one is that leadership is a question of truth. And let's take the topic of natural gas. Europe lives on natural gas. America generates a great deal of natural gas as well. How can we tell the developing world that they cannot have access to natural gas as part of the transition, if we live on it ourselves? And so I think there is a little bit of the issue of trust in each other.

I actually believe that if you open the taps of natural gas everywhere, you won't be able to close it again. So the wrong answer is to say, let me just do what I want. The correct answer is to say, what's the right way of bridging this situation? These are hard topics. They get emotional. They get political. And as someone said at a lunch a little while ago, the challenge with politics is we know what we need to do. The problem in the democratic world is you probably won't get elected again if you do it. And I think that is a situation that needs to be tackled. That's one part of it. In an organization like the World Bank, I believe the real issue is a sense of urgency and a sense of thoughtful risk-taking in the organization. If we bring urgency to what we do, we change the way in which leaders are empowered to make change happen.

And the third part is that, you know, if you look at the private sector, we think that money is going to be very important in the energy transition that we are going to go through, t he reality is, we know that solar power and wind power are cheaper per unit than fossil fuel. We know that this is not a secret. Scaling technology in the last 5 or 10 years has done that for us. Why is it then that trillions of dollars are not flowing into that space for investing?

If we sit with the private sector, you get 3 or 4 things that matter. The first one is clarity on regulatory policy in the country where you're asking them to invest. We can help, organizations like us. Al does that all day long. This is what he does. He argues for clarity on policy and vision. I think you need more like him, because together we can make change happen on policy in countries.

The second is the issue of political risk despite that regulatory policy. Institutions like the World Bank offer political risk insurance. Are we doing enough? No. We lose $6 or $7 billion of political risk guarantees in a year. Should we be doing 20. Absolutely. Are we going to do 20 by 2030? Absolutely. That is the second sense of urgency.

The third topic is the issue of foreign exchange. We cannot wish away that issue. If you expect a foreign investor to bring dollars, euros and yen into a country and get paid in local currencies, ask Jesper, he will tell you this all day long, or Andre, they are all businessmen. You cannot take that risk on an unexposed basis. These countries don't have hedging markets that are either wide enough or deep enough.

Institutions like ours have got to find a way to come in to help fill that gap. We cannot absorb the risk endlessly, but we can be creative and thoughtful in helping to bridge the foreign exchange risk that you cannot expect private investors to take unhedged if you want to bring that capital to the table.

And the last item is originate to distribute. We cannot be the ones who do all these projects and put them on our balance sheet. Our balance sheets are finite, and if you wanted a miracle, I would want my capital to multiply many times, but would be a miracle if it comes true. I'll use it. Meanwhile, can I leverage my balance sheet? But can I do more than I can with what I have? Because the worst form of leadership is pointing to somebody else to help you out. The best form of leadership is do more with what you have, because a sense of urgency must seize you every day of your life.

Gim Huay Neo, Managing Director, World Economic Forum Geneva: We do need to quickly wrap up. And, I will give you 10 seconds each, because one of the greatest gifts that humanity has been given is the power of imagination to dream of a better future. What is the hope that you and your organization, the people you influence, would like to bring to the audience here today? We need to end on an optimistic note ten seconds each so that I can close with Chief Putany.

Katharine HayhoeClimate Scientist, Distinguished Professor and Endowed Chair in Public Policy, Texas Tech University: When we live in harmony with nature, the impact on our physical health, our mental health, our own well-being is hard for us to even imagine. The future could be better than we could possibly imagine.

Ajay S. Banga, President, World Bank Group: I think that the world has come to the conclusion that political leaders and everybody else, cannot say that it's my turn. Let me grow with energy emissions, heavy growth. There is a big change in the last five years. Let's seize that moment and use the momentum. Use the wind in our sails to make a difference. I just want you to know the World Bank will not do it alone. We're here, and we are ready to stand and be counted.

Kristalina Georgieva, Managing Director, International Monetary Fund: I think it is very important to recognize that, the majority of people on this planet are actually very good people and they know we have a very big crisis. And they, are willing and very often doing the right thing. Our problem today is that we have a very loud minority, minority of hate, of anger. And the voice of rational behaviour and wisdom and goodness gets sometimes brought down.

I lead an economic institution, and I want my institution to be that voice of reason, but also goodness. We need to be more equitable, more inclusive. A world that is, for everybody, a better place. So amplify the voice of goodness.

Jesper Brodin, Chief Executive Officer, Ingka Group (IKEA): I was reflecting. Courage comes and goes. I think courage to rise above whatever positions we have. Rise above our positions. Take great responsibility. Don't hide behind being a victim in the system. Courageous leadership to, share dilemmas, to not have all the answers, but to expose your fears and your uncertainty about the topic.

Courageous leadership to work with others that you never maybe needed to work with before.

And I would say courageous leadership to be a bloody optimist, because we need to solve this. So we need optimists because optimists are the ones that engage. We are not in the audience. We're in the field. Sometimes we fail. But that's the only way we will resolve this.

Andre HoffmannChairman, Massellaz SA: We were supposed to bring a note of optimism. I'm not sure I have very much optimism to share. I think the current system doesn't work. I think we have an opportunity to change the system by using the existing institutions, which are represented here, by trying to make and to reconstruct an economy and a system that serves the people, that serves humanity and not certain parts of only.

The future has to be just and equal if you really want it to work properly, and the new technologies will allow us to better distribute riches around the place, and we must seize that opportunity. There is no sustainability possible without a balance, and that means we need to reduce inequalities.