Professor Adil Najam, what are your expectations to the climate negotiations in Warsaw? I don't have too high expectations for Warsaw, but I do hope that the negotiations will move us forward, even slightly forward, towards the final agreement. And by an agreement, I mean a grand agreement, I don't think I don't see that happening in 2013, but I hope over the next one to three years, we will move there and Warsaw will be a good indicator of whether we are moving in the right direction or not. Do you see a chance of an international agreement in the end? I hope so. I think the world hopes so. The world has been waiting for a very long time, ever since the Rio 92 conference, we've been waiting for a grand agreement. But let us also realize that the agreement that comes out of these negotiations, the piece of paper that everyone signs is not really the goal, the goal is action. And in some ways, a de facto agreement is already there. Countries, we already kind of know where they stand, some countries are already doing certain things, other countries, we know the directions. So we do not need to wait for a formula agreement, because what we should be focused on is what countries are actually doing and nudging them, pushing them, cajoling them, convincing them to move in the right direction. Pakistan's contribution to the global emission of greenhouse gases is less than 1%. Still, it has been rated of one of the most vulnerable nations to the adverse effects of climate change. What positions should countries like Pakistan take in those negotiations? This is one of the cruel twists that nature has played, not just on Pakistan, but on many, many, many developing countries, many poorer countries. It turns out that many of the countries that are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change are the countries that have contributed the least to producing it. And in some ways, that's understandable, because if you are poor, you are going to be vulnerable because your ability to build resilience will be less, and you will be on marginal areas, you will be more, more, more under threat. That is the situation for a country like Pakistan. What kind of impact does climate change have on the region with regards to ecological, economical and social consequences? All countries at one level are climatically defined. But Pakistan and South Asia, I think, are particularly climatically defined. I mean by that is that if you think about Pakistan, its history, its sociology, its economics, its lifestyle, even its religious rituals and stuff, they have very huge footprint, fingerprint of the climate on that. And what I mean by that is, here is the monsoon, the grand rain, the grand rains, and they come happen because there is the Himalayas. And that gives you the great rivers that define this country. Now, what that means is that if anything changes in any of these grand climatic forces, the country's ecology, economy, sociology gets impacted in many, many ways. It gets impacted in terms of economic issues such as food production, such as agricultural. It gets impacted because the cities are defined by the climate and cities are placed by the climate and so on so forth. Staying with the impacts of climate change, what effects could it have on food security? Food is probably one of the first indicators, the first real big indicators of climatic impacts in a country like Pakistan. Pakistan is still a major agricultural country. It needs to feed a very large population, just under 200 million people. Therefore, food is a particularly important thing. And food, if you think about it in a Pakistani context, is really like packaged water. So, if you start thinking food very quickly, you are thinking water because that's the key constraint. When, not just how much water there is, but also when is water there? Are there floods, droughts? And therefore, the food question in Pakistan gets linked very much to the water question. And water is how climate and food gets linked in Pakistan. Coming from the national level to the international level again and to the climate change conferences, should Pakistan focus on fan mechanisms more and on technology transfer? I think, as I mentioned the earlier ones, a number of things that Pakistan needs to do, international assistance can help, whether it's financial or technological. But first of all, for all developing countries, in all countries, really developing or industrialized, the realization has to come that this is a challenge of national priority. This is a challenge of national importance. Now, then the question is, what type of international assistance can help where? In terms of technology, I think the biggest and most important potential is in the energy area. Pakistan has to leapfrog in energy. It has to move from a dirtier system to a cleaner system. And their technology will play a bigger role. Their countries like Germany, for example, which have experimented with better cleaner technology, can play a pivotal role in allowing Pakistan to leapfrog. In other areas, especially adaptation, development adaptation, I think financial resources are important. And my own sense is financial resources are important, not just in giving more money to environment. They are more important in giving more attention to environment in our development spending. When we build roads, when we build infrastructure, when we build even schools. So it is not that you have to give separate money to environment or separate attention to environment. It is that you put environment at the center of the development enterprise. Pakistan and India face common challenges regarding climate change. A melting of the Himalayas and glaciers, for example, will have an effect on the whole region. Are both countries willing to cooperate on these issues or will it increase the conflict of the nuclear neighbours? Here is one of the grand realities of the climate change world. When I travel from Pakistan to India, I need a visa. I need a passport. When pollution from my car travels from Pakistan to India, it needs nothing. The carbon dioxide molecule can go wherever it wants. And that is the nature of the climatic and the environmental problem. That is true for water, that is true for climate, that is true for pollution. And therefore, the lesson is that environmental problems in general, climate problems in particular can only be tackled at the international level, at the bilateral level, at the regional level, at the global level. So I think there is an inbuilt logic of cooperation within climate change. And my hope is that climate change is going to bring these countries together to do a little few more things together, rather than to break them apart. I don't think countries will go to war over climate change because it happens to slowly. I think it is much more likely, I hope it is much more likely that countries will see the logic of cooperation, for example on issues of water, for example on issues of industrial policy, industrial location and so on so forth, for example on the issues of glaciers and the management of glaciers. So therefore countries, not just India, Pakistan, India, Pakistan, China, Nepal, who share the same mountain range. And therefore, I think the logic of cooperation will trump the logic of competition and conflict. Thank you very much. Thank you.