The more jargon you introduce into a debate, the harder it is for the public and for all of us to see through the falsehood that's hidden behind that jargon. The European emissions trading scheme is not working well. It is certainly not working well if the objective was to address climate change. The issue is that we believe carbon trading is not capable of triggering the revolution in energy infrastructure that is needed. We are putting about six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the atmosphere can deal with. The most of the fossil fuels that today are still underground will have to stay on the ground. Just look at the top number. With that volume, there is already too much in the atmosphere. No single way and no way that there is an instrument like carbon trading that could keep us safe if it allows the continuation of digging up oil and coal. They are simply, surely looking at the numbers. There is no way. But the clear challenge is to move away from our addiction to fossil fuels. What is carbon trading? Carbon trading is meant to be an instrument that puts a price on carbon. If you have two companies, each of them is given a certain amount of permits, say 100 units. So together they can emit 200 units of carbon dioxide into the air. Carbon trading is based on the rationale that it doesn't matter if the first company or the first factory uses up 150 of those units and the other 150. As long as it's just 200, carbon trading will help to find the cheapest way to stick within that limit. But there is a few very questionable assumptions in that. Carbon trading says it doesn't matter where you reduce emissions. Because it's not only carbon dioxide that matters. It's also the other social and environmental impacts that come with oil exploration, with coal extraction. But carbon trading doesn't acknowledge those. So it simply says if we have to stay within a certain limit, just give the companies to find the cheapest way to stay inside that limit. What carbon trading also has shown is that because this is an entirely artificial market, set up not by the need to buy and sell, but set up by the need of politicians to find a way out of the difficult choices that they have to lead us into. When we look at the first round of emissions trading in Europe where the largest companies, the largest emitters, the oil refineries, the power producers, the steel companies, the pharmaceutical industries, those were the big industries that were included in this emissions trading scheme. When we look at the results from that first round of emissions trading, we see who the winners are. We see that the European emissions trading scheme and any other scheme that will be introduced along the same lines. This resulted in the quasi privatization of the atmosphere. It has transferred the right with a very specific monetary value of emissions onto the balance sheets of some of the most powerful companies. Some of the companies that are in the first place responsible for the carbon crisis. The funny thing about these permits in the European emissions trading scheme is that they have been given out for free to the companies. The government said we have to reduce emissions, but we have to win big industry to join in. We don't ask them to pay the permits to emit greenhouse gases. We give them to them for free. We don't do that in a particularly transparent process. We negotiate with them. You see who won. Some of the largest oil companies, the energy utilities in this case in the UK, made record windfall profits from carbon trading. And as you will see later on in the presentation, emissions went up nonetheless. There is one other very disturbing aspect about carbon trading that is generally not being discussed. When you look at that list, you see that about 17 to 34 percent of the amount that the atmosphere can deal with in terms of greenhouse gas emissions has just been given for free to European industries. If 100 percent is the maximum, 34 or 17 to 34 percent certainly is not a fair share for a very small minority of high polluting industries in Europe. So there is a justice of inequality here that is being perpetuated. And again, when you look at the record windfall profits that those companies can make, I believe it becomes very clear why there was not all that much resistance after all amongst some of the largest industries in Europe to introduce emissions trading. The kind of long-term investments in a totally different energy infrastructure that we need if we are to address global warming, if we are to move into and beyond the triple crisis. Carbon trading puts a price on carbon, but that price will fluctuate hugely and you're not going to be convinced to make a big investment if you still have the hope that somewhere down the line that price of carbon will stay low enough for you to stay with your old outdated coal or oil-based technology. And that is important because there is no time to lose. A lot of the energy infrastructure in the industrialized countries, in the OECD countries, will be replaced in the next 10 to 15 years. That's where we decide what our energy sources will be for the next 50 years to come. So the choices are now and therefore instruments are needed now to give the right message. Carbon trading is giving the wrong message. Just gamble that you can buy up those permits on the market when they're cheap. It's often referred to as a cap and trade scheme. It puts a cap on the overall allowable emissions in the European Union and within that cap, companies can trade. The trouble is that in reality that cap has a huge hole. And that hole allows extra permits to flow into the European emissions trading scheme. Where do those permits come from? They come from offset projects. What are offset projects? There is a second type of trading that's often included or subsumed in the term carbon trading. There is this idea of you cap the overall emissions and then companies or individuals are allowed to trade, cap and trade or emissions trading. There is a second part to how you can trade carbon. And that is called project-based offsets. Those kinds of offset projects also inflate that cap. They make that cap bigger. They have torn a hole into it. It allows European companies to buy their way out of changes domestically. Nobody can really verify that that extra emission reduction that I have bought to neutralize my flight. Really is an extra emission reduction. You know, it'll be neutral. I've burned some more fossil fuels, but somewhere else, somebody else has planted some trees that wouldn't have been planted otherwise. They make us believe that we are addressing climate change, but in reality, they're built on a premise that we cannot verify. They've also, in many cases, done harm to local communities. Don't complain about the ongoing exploration in the Appalachian Mountains because it's climate neutral. And with that, I want to close and say, there is no shortcut out of the climate crisis. The beginning of that is that we acknowledge the fundamental change that's required. The fundamental change in energy infrastructure, the fundamental change in the way we use and produce energy. And carbon trading is a false solution to that because it will not give us the triggers and not give industry the triggers to move beyond energy infrastructures that rely fundamentally on oil and gas. And coal.