Thank you very much, Ms. Neiland. It's really a pleasure for me to be here. Thank you for your kind introduction now. Of course, I finished from the United Nations. I'm still around, though, not because I'm afraid of going to Tuvalu, in case it's singers. But I think simply because of logisticals that I'm still around. And I love New Jersey. I love New York. It's a beautiful city. And I love the people, including the people in the United Nations. So, thank you very much for your introduction. So, it does reflect how important Tuvalu is attaching on the issues, the thematic issues of this session of the CSD. I'm not sure if I'm qualified or if I'm able to answer thoroughly to the question circulated in the flyer in preparation for this side event. But I do have some observations to make regarding the issue of climate change. And how I see progress has been made and how we can accelerate that process. Having been part of the process for over the past six years to coordinate the alliance of small-line states input into the process of climate change, I think I have, I can make some observations that can be shared by many of us around the room. Well, over the past few months, of course, the world has received and heard outcomes and conclusions of very important reports, two of which are significant. And this I'm referring to the IPCC, two parts, the first and the second parts, first on science, second on impacts of climate change. And of course, the economic, the review, the Sir Nicholas Stern review, which concluded on the possible, the highly likely economic costs of no actions against climate change. Now, both of these reports conclusions leave us with a very, very scary scenario for future. And for certainly for small-line developing states, including Tuvalu, atoll countries like Tuvalu, Maldives, Marshall Islands, and Kiribati, the picture is very, very scary. When I heard the presentation from my PCC in Nairobi during the COP12, I was already thinking of recommending strongly to the people of Tuvalu to start packing. Knowing very well that commitment to act on the solutions or the options that were already available were very slow in coming. Now, the measures underlining the two conclusions or the conclusions of the two reports is very simple and clear. The future will be catastrophic for all communities, for all countries, but particularly those that have already been identified as particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. If the international community failed to do something urgently, that's a simple message. Do we have to have more solid science? Do we have to wait? If we did, we would be going totally against the principles that are implanted in what we commented 15 or 17 years ago in real, the principle of precautionary actions. I want to flag out three observations in my presentation to share with you. Because I strongly feel it is a moral obligation, it is beyond political obligation, economic obligations to help countries like Tuvalu and small island developing states, and of course, less developed countries. And we have to do something urgently. But despite all the progress after 15 years of the UN Convention of Framework on Climate Change, we still stuck. I think, stored by the lack first, the lack of global leadership, there is still simply no global leadership that we can see. Second, there is, I think, a serious deficit of public awareness. What is there? What are we actually meaning when we talk about need for actions against climate change? And there is third point, there is total absence of moral responsibility. Now, not the first one of lack of global leadership, of course, the science are with us. And this is solid, solid science. Why? Because it is concluded from the work of 2000, more than 2000 scientists, the work, based on which. I mean, the second released, the recently released part of the fourth assessment report, refers to impacts, based on the earlier report on science. The technological options have been made available, made known and shared to us, not only within the climate change process, but I understand it's also shared to other communities. Yet, we still stuck with this blaming game, this finger pointing. And I mean, I was in Nairobi at the, we hours of negotiations, COP 12. To me, sitting there coming from a small island country, already affected by climate change, I can't believe, just by the advancement we made, we still finger pointing. We still stuck by blaming game, developing countries, pointing fingers, developed countries, pointing fingers at developing countries. I think we should rise and move about that. And remember that there is moral responsibility. That should go far beyond above the political and economic considerations against climate change. I'm very pleased that despite, you know, this blaming game, we seem to be moving forward. And I think the initiative by the United Kingdom to put climate change on the agenda of the security council, albeit, and despite how it was treated there last two weeks, is a significant step. Because indeed, it is a security issue. And to Valu Spogun, I have to thank the ambassador for speaking out in the security council. That these have security connotations for Valu. And I hope that the agenda is moved forward to some sort of permanent consideration of the issue, like what the security council is doing to HIV AIDS. So, security issue. The second one that I wanted to touch on is public opinion. After the issuance of those, the conclusions of those two reports, I thought of the limited tools that we have in our hands. The most important one, or the very important one, is public opinion. We have to move out of the box, not only lead to the negotiators, diplomats in the climate change process, the experts, scientists. We have to move out to the communities, to the churches, to the schools, to the education sector. You know, to bring this message, I have to admit also in to Valu, we are finding trouble, convincing the people to really think seriously about this. You know, the people say, oh God provides, provides for us. He will save us from drowning. But of course, God will not help you if you don't help yourself first. Now, I think we have to work out on public opinion. As we move to the second commitment period, or future actions against climate change, it is vital we do this. The last point that I wanted to touch on was the absence, total absence of moral responsibility. Of course, we know very well, the convention provides for principles, and the conventions itself is a reflection of responsibility, to commit to something the world. I think that should be commented. The principles there, including the polluter pays principle, precautionary measures are principle, and the common but differentiated, this principle have to guide our work and to be worked on. There is moral responsibility to implement these principles properly. So I think we need to do much better than that. And clearly, on atmospheric pollution and targets and things like that, we often get this argument about uncertainty. We have to have certainty in order to act. But of course, principle three of the convention, clearly it tells us, it should not be a eubition for postponing actions. Why? Because islands like to value already sinking. And it's really sad for me to see this dragging on, distalling, waiting for science to be made certain. I don't think we have to have another repetition of the tsunami in 2005, of the Katrina to say, oh, now we are, we've got certainty, we have to move. I think that would be too late for tomorrow. And at a small island developing countries. Thank you very much for your opportunity.