Experts at Davos 2026 examine financing roadblocks to decarbonization and how blended finance, transition instruments, and policy can unlock crucial investment.
At Davos 2026, panelists converged on a blunt diagnosis: decarbonization is less constrained by “available capital” than by bankable business cases and policy credibility. Clariant CEO Conrad Keijzer argued that relying on carbon pricing alone has underdelivered; what works is improving the “return side” through demand creation, citing the US Inflation Reduction Act’s production-linked incentives. SOCAR’s Rovshan Najaf reinforced that finance follows cash flow: PPAs and mature renewables attract funding, while green hydrogen, ammonia, carbon capture, and methane abatement remain “uncommercial cases.” He added a new headwind: capital is being pulled toward “AI and data centers,” intensifying competition for power and investment.
EBRD President Odile Renaud-Basso highlighted distributional gaps: in 2023, East Asia/Pacific, Western Europe, and North America captured roughly 80% of climate finance; 94–95% went to mitigation, leaving resilience underfunded despite a world “already” at 1.5°C. Hong Kong’s Paul Chan framed government’s role as infrastructure and market-building—green bonds, EV incentives, and securitizing operating assets—while emphasizing trust via disclosure and taxonomy.
On 2030 goals, views diverged, but the prescription was consistent: stable long-term policy, consumer transparency on product footprints, and a “shared global vision” to sustain investment.
Welcome to our session on how to finance decarbonisation. I want to welcome our speakers. I want to welcome our audience in the room and also everyone online with our live online audience. This session is about the transition to a more sustainable economy, and this will require unprecedented levels of public and private finance at a time of slow growth or slowing growth. High debt, especially in many emerging economies, and uneven political support. I always like to say we cannot solve this problem on public finance alone. There just isn't enough public finance alone to be able to address this very complex global issue of climate change. We're fortunate to have a fantastic panel that, really will present a number of different perspectives. So let me begin by introducing the panelists. We have Ravshan Najafi, who is the president of the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan, at the opposite end of the panel here, we have Conrad Kaiser. Did I pronounce it correctly? Correct. Who is president and chief executive officer of Clariant here in Switzerland? An alliance of the CEO climate leaders. And we have Odile Francois Renard Baso, the president of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. And to my immediate left, Paul Chan, who is the financial secretary of Hong Kong in China morning. So thank you to to the the panel. We are I think just to situate this a little bit in the global process. We recently had a cop in Azerbaijan and most recently we had Cop 30 in Brazil. I think one issue that has continued to really bedevil the negotiations and our progress more generally is, is access to finance. And that is not only a problem in developing countries and emerging economies, but also, I think even in the advanced industrialized economies, finding the right levels of finance, is important to be able to mobilize the capital that's needed. And I think the policy incentives and policy structures at both the global level through the, the global negotiations, and and the Unfcc and the Paris Agreement, but also, at the individual national level is very important. And I hope we'll we'll get into both the incentive structures of both the country level and at the global level. So let's, let's dive in. We'll do some questions here. And I'm hoping to also engage the audience. So, I have no doubt we'll have a very rich discussion. Let me begin with this question of what capital structures or incentives have actually already helped to unlock the the deployment of new projects. And maybe should we start with you, Conrad?
Yeah. If you look at what has worked already, I think we should also sort of reflect on what has not worked. What has not worked is if you sort of look only on the taxation side of things with with carbon pricing, for example, what we need is more focus on the R side, the return side. So if you basically make a return on your capital, capital typically becomes available in today's world, whether it's from the public sector or whether it's private sector. I think the key challenge with the whole transformation, whether it's the energy transition, the materials transition, is that the industry needs solid business cases to invest. And I think what we really need is a bit more focus on the demand side to basically create a market for low carbon products. What worked very well, in fact, was the IRA when that package was announced, and it was not only on the capital side subsidies, it was also incentives. So for every tonne of carbon reducing material, for instance, in the chemical sector you would produce, you would get a tax deduction that actually created a business case. And you saw actually a lot of investments being announced. Shortly after this IRA package was.
This is the Inflation Reduction Act.
The Inflation Reduction Act.
Sorry.
Under President Biden.
It is somewhat disappointing that some of that now is being pulled back. But if you ask what worked globally, I think the IRA is a good example of what worked because it's not only addressing the capital side, but it was also addressing the return side of the equation.
Yeah. So just to break that down a little bit, I'm sorry.
Because if I may add to that, what works is also when governments were securing or ensuring long term purchase agreements for electricity. When we talk about decarbonization, I think we have to dive in and to separate different technologies, because what worked for IRA is for mainly wind, solar and batteries and electric vehicles. But even IRA and other support doesn't work for green hydrogen or green ammonia for the time being. And in that sense, it's not just one part of the government. It should be different ingredients that are necessary for the success. This should be commercial case. Exactly. If you look where the funding is going, it's again will be renewables, wind, solar, batteries, electric vehicles. There are less funding is going. It will be, carbon capturing technologies, green ammonia, green hydrogen and methane abatement because there is no commercial case on that. That's why we should not look only from like I write up support. It should be commercial case. It should be funding.
So what would create the commercial case? What kind of conditions?
Technology. But in order to have breakthrough in technology and to have affordable technology. Because whatever we talk about solar and wind, the price of technology, has decreased and it became more available. It's technological breakthrough. And, funding funding from commercial banks. It will not go to uncommercial cases. Some companies, like energy companies, which I'm representing, we are ready to lead the way. But in that sense, we have to prioritize what we are going to finance in current circumstances. Like if we look in last one year, again, oil and gas becomes important and I have to, as a CEO, decide where I'm spending my money. And oil and gas will be one of the priority areas. In that sense, I will not have free capital to send to uncommercial, but potentially breakthrough technologies that I would do if I have financing or funding for my oil and gas project. That's why it's a very complicated issue for my oil and gas projects. I cannot get money from international financial institutions or most of European commercial banks, and it leaves me only with my own cash. If I spend my own cash on oil and gas, I cannot spend on green hydrogen, green ammonia to test it, to have the pilots. So it should be a big picture approach to all energy mixes and how we can free up the capital.
Okay, let's go to an international financial institution. I'll come to you next, I promise. So let's go to a deal next for for your thoughts.
So we are focusing more on the emerging markets. So I will come to what needs to be done and what I see as a sort of incentive in the in the emerging markets, which is, yes, but in advanced economies. And I think globally you were very negative about carbon price. But at the end of the day, I think economic incentive, I mean, prices are what makes market functioning. So it needs to be part of the I mean, it's one of the key instruments I continue to believe if you don't have price signal, it's very difficult to allocate investment taking into account the I mean the the impact and the. Impact on the of carbon emission and so forth. So I think that needs to remain a component. But of course you also need I think and it was mentioned for breakthrough technologies and so forth, some support and some incentive in order to, to facilitate investment, and to, to to focus research on that, but also the clarity of the policy framework is very important. And the policy objective, if you have a clear policy objective in terms of when do you want to get to net zero, what do you do want to do with your car industry and so forth. This drives investment over the long term, and this is something which we see also very important for emerging and developing markets, which is they need I mean, the the need of a clear strategy of when do you want to get to your net? When when is your net zero target, how are you going to transform your energy system in order to, to shift towards a more, more decarbonized system and so forth? And that's why we've been working a lot in, in emerging markets on policy framework and in particular, the country platform issue, because country platform is a is a way for the country to explain clearly what they want to do. I mean, set up a policy framework, based very often on the Paris Agreement commitment and so forth, and then bringing all the partners, being public and private on the same agenda, so everybody knows what are the objectives. It is also quite helpful to avoid the impact of short term policy change because it's a platform. It's a long term commitment with all partners. So it tends to continue even if you have some political challenges in the, in the, I mean, in government and so forth. And it also a very efficient tool to bring together public sector public development banks. So concessional funding, Green Climate Fund, for example, or multilateral development banks and private sector on projects where we can have some co-financing and so forth. And one good example we have is Egyptian experience, where they launched four days, four years ago or three years ago in Sharm el-Sheikh with their country platform. And this has really brought, $5 billion of investment in from the private sector in the renewable, generation capacity in Egypt. And I mean, providing a big boost to the energy transition of the country.
Okay, let's come to Paul Chan, who can provide, I think, a public perspective. But also you have such a vibrant private capital environment in Hong Kong. So you can probably talk about that too.
Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. As government we set very clear target towards carbon neutrality by the year 2050. And the target in the process is to cut our carbon emission from the 2005 level by half by 2035. So these are the targets. How to do it four pronged approach. Number one power generation in terms of zero emission power generation, because we are a small city, a lot of high rise buildings. So electricity consumption indeed is the largest contributor to carbon emission. So number one to deal with is power generation zero emission. Second is about the buildings consumption of electricity. The third one is transportation and the fourth one waste reduction. And on this as a matter of principle, if it is about building the infrastructure, then the government will come in. We provide for that. And how do we finance it? We finance it through government green bond program. So we have a very clear green bond program. Designate the proceeds to a list of projects so that there is transparency. People know that this money will go to certain specific projects which are green and sustainable. But what is the major driver to finance this decarbonization process must be from the private sector. In that sense, we have to incentivize our people to give preference to green products, so that in turn it creates business case to the businesses to produce the products. For example, for our people, we encourage them to use electric vehicles so duty free on EVs for a number of years versus for fossil fuel EV vehicles, the duty can be as much as more than 100%. So we do it. And now the new cast issue in Hong Kong, about 70% already EV. And we start to phase out this subsidy. This is one example. The other is to enable people to invest in ESG and green related products, particularly for the younger generation. They love this investment. So, for example, in our stock exchange, we authorized over 200 ESG related funds and able access for retail investors. Total asset under management over 1 trillion HKD. This is just one example. But on top of that, we also give incentives people on their daily living in the sense of if you buy EV, you need to have charging facilities. So I subsidize you to install these facilities at your home so it is more accessible to them, for people living in certain areas we encourage, no matter how small the step is, please do try install some renewable energy generation capability like solar panels. So you use this. We give you tax deduction. The extra electricity generated could be sold back to the grid to be shared. So this is a multi-pronged approach. If I may supplement further in terms of providing financing from a government perspective, we need to be more innovative so that we can better channel private capital to these projects. For example, for projects in your country. Already brownfield projects up and running, generating cash flow. Please come to Hong Kong, securitize it on our stock exchange so that you can channel the money back to new investments. And that is one example. The other is tokenize our green bonds. So that is easier. It is not just for institutional investors. It is for also retail investors. And don't underestimate the enthusiasm. Huge take up. So that is another example to offer products to retail investors so that they can participate. But in the process, if I, I can mention one more point. You need to inspire trust and confidence of those institutional and retail investors that this money really go to green and transitional projects. So disclosure is important. Verification auditing is important. That's why we contribute to the formulation of the taxonomy for reporting purposes. And also as the Institute of Certified Accountants to do the auditing preparation, to train their practitioners to able to offer assurance service. So perhaps I should stop here first. Thank you.
That was great. So I'm going to try to summarize what we've learned so far, which is that a wide variety of types of policy tools are necessary to create the environment. I'm hearing pricing policies or market based policies, fiscal policies, lots of different types of tax incentives and so forth. Innovation policies to create the the technology. We need regulatory policies, including information and disclosure requirements. All very important. So let's talk about, who's who's winning and who's losing so far in terms of actually getting the capital they need. Which sectors are getting the capital they need or being deprived of it. You know, I heard a little bit from you, and also geographies, who's really getting the capital and who is not, who wants to start? Odile, why don't we go with you?
So, I mean, in terms of, geographies, I think that, when you look at the figures of 2023, three regions got 80% of the climate, what is called climate finance, East Asia and Pacific, the largest, Western Europe, US and Canada. And I think that the challenge we have is that, other regions emerging and developing regions, in particular Africa, are not really receiving a lot of funding, and there are a lot of reasons. So it's also and it shows how important it is, I mean, the global policy environment, the business, I mean rule of law, capacity to business, borrowing capacity, financial conditions and so forth. And of course, I mean also the economic infrastructure. All this is very important in terms of, I mean, where where the capital is flowing and in terms of sector, there is a first time in mitigation is what received much more. I mean, in terms of climate, 95%, 94% is mitigation. So this I think there is a huge challenge in terms of funding more resilience. And it's not decarbonisation, but it's adjusting to what is the new reality of 1.5 degrees.
We're already at.
So we're already there. And we know that the cost of, you know, is natural disasters and so forth is increasing problem of insurability and so forth. So the resilience dimension is extremely important. And the business models there are not easy because it's a lot of public sector investment, public infrastructure and so forth. So how you find we are mainly focusing on funding the private sector. This is quite challenging to have return on investment, on resilient investment. It's more protecting for for risks. That and in terms of sector, I think energy received a lot. And this is mainly driven by the huge drop of costs in renewable energy, battery storage and so forth. So energy is a big I think transport is also quite a lot. The less finance sector in terms of climate funding is industry. And I think that's a big challenge where there is, to my knowledge, I mean, something like 25 billion USD invested in 23. This is the latest figures we have. And and even I mean MDB so public I mean multilateral banks do not invest so much in industry I think is one of the largest 80% of the funding from is coming from from Ebrd in this area. But this is an area where we we need to focus more and and through energy efficiency, but also new technologies and more proactive decarbonization technology. And we are trying to we've worked, for example, in Turkey with the business, manufacturing communities and the government in order to have a strategy for decarbonization, of how to abate sector and so forth in view of learn over the long term in order to support this kind of investment.
And I want to come back to the country platform idea. But first let's go to Ravshan. First.
Let's again look at the big picture and talk extra sectorial and Intersectorial extra sectorial. Last two years there is a huge competition from other fields. The most attractive for any investor now is AI and data centers, which requires a lot of power. Yes, and in that sense, all our calculations and all our projections that we were looking into it two years ago, they didn't, take into account the huge surge in demand for power BI, AIS and that data centers, in that sense, and available money for data centers, AI, it's very easy to get you go you talk financial institutions, banks, investors, private investors, big investors. Everyone is ready to finance this type of projects. And in that sense, extra sectorial competition. I think decarbonization is losing. Again, my, personal opinion, intra sectorial. If we look here again, I fully agree, with Madam President, the sectors where you have guaranteed cash flows or the clear cash flows, like, power purchase agreements, you can invest in solar wind. You are electric vehicles, you can invest their batteries. There is a demand. There is commercial case. Again, there are other cases within decarbonization segment or sector which don't present any commercial viability from the point of view of financing institutions, they get under investment. And in that sense, I also would like to comment on Mr. Chen's comment. We have talked a lot about it. You cannot fight climate change locally. It should be globally. And I do congratulate and I do appreciate what you are doing there. But you will do all this. The other parts of the world will do other stuff. And again, when we talk about AI data centers now, also people talking about bringing back more coal power plants because data centers need baseload that is not intermittent power supply. We cannot do a good thing in one place and do other things in other places. It will not change the equation. Let's say. That's why again, it should be talked and dealed as a one big picture. And in that sense, if big players will have different agenda for next three four years, it will be difficult for business to be persuaded to invest in what will be relevant three, four years after. Why? Because again, I'm coming. Oil and gas. We should understand the economics of oil and gas. You invest today, you get the product in six, seven, eight years. And in that sense, it doesn't mean that you will invest today and tomorrow. You will get the products that you can supply to the market. Again, energy companies. And we see the change in the strategy of international major international oil companies that are coming back to invest in, oil and gas, but doing it in a sustainable manner. And this gives them less capital available for decarbonization purposes.
Conrad, I saw your hand up earlier. Yeah, yeah.
So answering your question, so so first by region, what you see right now, if you look at the numbers, is that most of the investments in renewable solutions are actually in China. There's still a high dependency on coal. But if you look at the sheer amount of investments by far China is leading, followed by Europe and then the US. If you look at it by sector, I think it's interesting. What has been indeed most successful is those sectors where there is a business case and indeed through innovation, solar wind have become competitive versus the fossil based energies. And therefore what you've seen is plenty of capital is available. And actually, if you look in Europe, 25% of the energy market now is renewable. So I think there's a good momentum there. If you look at fuel, it becomes more difficult. If you look at shipping industry, the airline industry here, technical solutions are there. You can go to renewable feedstock. Even esoph is technically viable, but from a cost point it's not. So the business case is not there. And what you see therefore, is the demand is not there. The demand is only based on mandates. For SAF. There's a 2% blending mandate. And actually what you see is there's no voluntary market. And progress therefore is less so. And these mandates are very necessary. Where the transition is more challenging is even not in the energy transition, but in the materials transition. So if you look at the products, even all the products in this room here, technically they can actually be based on non-fossil feedstock. You can make plastics based on renewable feedstock. You can use green hydrogen, renewable carbon as a feedstock for products. Now that will come at a significant cost. Premium investments in those technologies only will happen when there is a demand pull. And I loved the examples that Paul just gave what he's doing in Hong Kong, where you basically give these incentives on electric vehicles, lower taxation on them, that actually triggers demand. And you could think of a much broader approach. And in the chemical industry in Europe, we're increasingly advocating for this. Have transparency at a customer level on what is truly the carbon footprint of products. A lot of companies report their carbon emissions, but nothing really happens with that data. If you bring that down to the SKU level, to the product level, to the consumer product level, so that in a supermarket, you know, what is the carbon footprint of of a bottle of shampoo, you as a consumer can make the choice to either buy that or not. And you could even incentivize it by differentiating a VAT tax, a lower tax on carbon neutral or low carbon products that would create a demand pool. And then this transition, which we also need in materials, would actually gain more momentum.
Yeah. Good. You could go even further and impose a fee, you know, on the high carbon products and a rebate on, you know, those have been shown to be very effective, especially in Japan. But I think also used.
We took we take a different route, okay. Instead of imposing tax because our tax is very simple, simple and low tax regime is Hong Kong's core competitiveness. We don't have VAT or GST. So what we try to do is to work with the business sector to build a business case. For example, we want to have more hydrogen on the road, whether this can be a business case or not, we don't know. So we give subsidy to the bus company to buy those hydrogen buses and test run on the road. We believe, as you mentioned, fuel costs and transition to green and sustainable fuel is important for shipping, for aviation, for aviation stuff. Still very expensive. So what should we do? We put in a scheme to subsidize the airline for a couple of years. And at the same time we utilize our financial strength. Why don't we consider setting up some production of SAF in the region? Hong Kong is small. We may not be able to accommodate it, but we can co-invest across the border in China, South China, we take we take a minority stake into it to ensure the project is viable. And the supply would give us to ensure our airline company would have a source of stable supply. That is one way of doing it. On consumers, it is important to have the buy in of the general public. So what we have been trying to do, for example, in terms of power generation, on the transition to zero emission power generation, we set targets. We must, we already stopped building coal fired power generation facilities in 1997. We set out the target to cease the use of those power in 2035. So in this process, we need to work with the power companies. They have to transition to use natural gas and enhance their facilities. That will reflect on the tariff to the consumer. And that is tough. And in our case, this is a regulated industry. So the fair increase, the tariff increase must have the approval of the government. On the one hand, they need to be financially viable for the company. On the other hand, it need to be tolerable by the consumer. So we step in to provide certain subsidy, on a sliding scale and phasing out over a number of years so that the heat on the consumer, would be better managed.
Okay. I want. So far most of our perspectives have been from more advanced economies. And I want to sort of bring the, the voice of the developing countries to the panel, because I think what we're seeing today is that we have a lot of distressed economies in, in Africa and, even in East Asia and Latin America. And we need to think about how we're going to be able to support those, those emerging economies coping with really high debt burdens, potentially low growth rates, depending on who we're talking about. And this dual stress of wanting to decarbonize and become more resilient, I think many of them are maybe even more focused now at this point on, adapting and, and, you know, making sure their economies are resilient to climate change. So how what do you think are the best approaches for how to do that? Is there something different about how we approach developing countries compared with our approach in already industrialized countries? And I'm looking at Odile to start, because I know this part of what you think about.
No, I think you mentioned the situation of countries with high debt burden. And I mean, very often developing countries do not have the luxury to be able to provide incentive for people. When you think about the number of countries, there are people in Africa that do not have access to energy, to electricity. So I think that for in this kind of situation, the key question is how you manage to bring to avoid that everything is on the shoulders of the government or the public sector, but to bring a private investors, and I think on that, the renewable situation is a good news because in a way, I mean, the economics of renewable energy is now very clear. I think it's very cheap. And in in a number of countries, the, the natural resources in terms of wind, sun and so forth are very strong. And, and so this the case for investing in private sector renewable projects, in these in a number of emerging developing markets is very, very I mean, economic it makes a lot of economic sense. So then the question is more I mean, the business environment, the credibility of the PPA, how you ensure that you are paid back. I mean, and the question of local currency versus, hard currency, all these questions related, which are much broader than just the transition, but I mean, the environment. And that's where MD, first of all, the clarity of the policy, the clarity of the strong, regulatory, transparent rule of law for business and so forth is important. Role of Mdbs can be important in order to provide some derisking, support, also in the work with the government and so forth. But there I think that it doesn't cover everything. I mean, challenges remain. For example, you need investment when you create new renewable capacity, you need to invest in the grid. Very often the grid remains in the public. I mean, publicly owned, it means that there is the need for there needs for public investment and so forth. But I think this still creates a new dynamic, in the, in the and it gives some countries can have the potential to really becoming also energy exporter. It's an opportunity for a number of countries. I think that needs to be seen as an opportunity. When you see countries like, I mean, which we work Egypt, Morocco, but also some sub-Saharan African countries in energy is becoming a source of export on manufacturing and so forth. It would be, I think that but if you have already clean energy, that's a good, very good start, I would say.
Yeah. Right. Okay. We have ten minutes left. I want to give the audience a chance to ask some questions. So maybe we'll take two questions and then come back to the panel. Let's start with you right here. And if we have a microphone that would be great for our online audience to be able to hear your question, please introduce yourself and then ask your question.
Hello, my name is Vinicius LaGuardia. I'm from Brazil. I'd like to ask on the opportunity side, especially thinking on the mining and metals industry, whether it's an opportunity to, grow into more markets and grow the mining and metals. And how are your countries and your organizations looking to these opportunities in mining? Thank you.
Great. That's a that's a great question, because I think a lot of the developing countries are looking for sources of green growth and trying to find their comparative advantage. Who had the second question? Was that you? Yes. Let's come to you next.
Hi. My name is Michelle. I am one of the tech pioneers with the forum. My company's name is hyphy. We're an extraction technology at the earlier stages that turns plant biomass waste into chemicals. And my question is actually for you, Conrad, because I've studied one of the sort of like product lines that you all have, and I think it's a really good case study of, bands affecting how your company needs to change versus, what Paul mentioned earlier, which is like subsidies helping companies change or affecting how companies change. And so I'm curious specifically in like preservative applications where, for the context, there are some preservatives that are being banned because of their endocrine disruption, that go into like foods and personal care products. And Conrad's company. Apologies if I'm assuming anything, is working on natural alternatives to those preservatives to move away from these synthetics. So curious about your experience running your company when a ban impacts you to change versus when, like a policy that subsidizes consumer behavior change impacts you to change.
Okay, let's take those two questions. Get some answers. If we have time, we'll do another round with the audience. Who wants to go first? Yes.
Go ahead. So question.
One again today it seems I like zooming out and zooming in, zooming out. When we talk about developing countries, the question number one, which should be answered and which we are being asked, why do we need this? Which is why developing countries? Because they say when you have developed infrastructure, you are at different stages of development. You see things differently. Now we need basic access to basic infrastructure. And why should we, be in line with you on climate change, on, decarbonization. We need our urgent needs to be met. In that sense, I think this question should be answered because without getting buy in, getting the sense of ownership and sense of devotion by these countries, projects will not reach their targets. Second, issue. It comes when we talk to these countries. Okay. But how we can finance it. So first, why do we need the second, how are we going to finance it and how are we going to finance it? Private and public sectors in developing countries, they will not be able to absorb all the costs, all the things they are looking into its support, it's grants. It's, loans from development organization, development funds and it doesn't comes. Okay. They have already a very big burden of the debt. How we should do it. One potential solution might be might be debt to climate swaps, for example. The debt they have to repay it automatically goes to green projects or decarbonization projects in a very fast track, mechanisms or using fast track tools. It can be the answer. On second part, it's a question to you, so I will refrain.
Go ahead.
No, I think it's a very important question. So do you need sort of sort of taxation. Do you need bans versus incentives and and sort of create demand. I think both are needed. So also for clarity, I think carbon pricing is a good thing in and by itself. And it's necessary to stop certain activities to, to correctly tax certain high carbon activities. I think it is important, though, to have sort of level playing fields, ideally a global level playing field. And if you have it in one part of the region and not in the rest of the world, it hurts competitiveness for companies operating in that part of the world. But I'm certainly not against carbon pricing, so I think that mechanism is important. I also think bands, particularly when it's about toxic products, products like PFAS in consumer applications. Yeah, those should be banned. Those are not the right, the right applications. Those are not the right products for the chemical industry. They're not good for consumers. So I think there's definitely a strong role for that. Equally so if you only have the bands and the taxation and the pricing, you sort of stop certain activities in the industry, which is important. But you also need to start certain new activities that are low carbon products, that are environmentally friendly products. And the reality is, in some applications, consumers are willing to pay premium for that. For example, in cosmetics, consumers are willing to pay a premium for bio based active ingredients in skincare, hair care, whatever people don't like in general to put a lot of chemicals on their face. So that's where consumers pay a premium and there's a demand, but there's equally many examples. And if you look around in this room, I made the comment, you can actually make all of these products based on biomass. Your own company is active in collecting waste, turning that into feedstock. Technically that's feasible, but then you need a business case, and a business case means you need a demand and at a certain price point to be competitive. And then I think there is a role for what you do in Hong Kong, which I think is very good, effective lowering actually the tax taxation on such products, for example VAT or in your case import duties on electric vehicles, you lower the tax on that or, or basically you could even tax, high polluting high carbon carbon products. Now in the current inflationary environment, maybe an incentive is more is more popular than than a taxation.
Typically is more popular.
Typically is more popular.
But there is a role for these. And there's also a role for mandates. If you look at sustainable aviation fuel without incentives, people are not voluntarily going to pay more for the airline tickets. So you will need mandates. And so I think there is a very, very there's a role for all of these elements. Yeah.
And and probably the last point is sorry supporting research, supporting innovation, supporting research and so forth because it's.
Yeah.
And very briefly about the mining industry, I would strongly encourage you to bring the company public. For example, you can come to Hong Kong. Just a few months ago, Kazakhstan listed mining company in Hong Kong. Apart from access to capital, I think what is important is that in the process, in preparation for this process, you will know that your company will be under public scrutiny. Then in terms of, the expectations of different stakeholders, in terms of transparency, credibility of the data, rationalization and enhancement of the operation and management, all are beneficial to the company. Indeed. Thank you.
Yeah. Odile.
Maybe a word on mining, because I think indeed that's a key issue. We all know that to be successful in the transition, mining and access to some critical material will be very important. And I think there is a I mean, we've always invested in mining, but there is a new role and more interest from countries, from other investors to, to get mining, of course, do it in a sustainable. Doing it in a sustainable manner will be critical. But I think there there is a lot of progress also done. So I think that will be a key area for investment in the coming years.
Okay. We have 2.5 minutes left. I want to take one more question from the audience. If we have one, or else I'll pose it and and then do a rapid round, okay. I get to pose it. I'm not seeing any hands. So I think, let's be honest right now, the, the global sort of momentum has waned. I think it's fair to say, so we're, we're confronting the fact that we have pretty ambitious targets for 2030. We're not mobilizing enough capital. Do you think it is still feasible for us to achieve our 2030 targets? And if not, what what else do we need to do? If you could pick one thing, I'm going to let you all sort of pick one thing that you, you would advocate for to get us back on track to achieving our 2030 targets. And maybe this time I'll start with you, Paul.
Well, for China, for Hong Kong, I think we surely will meet the target. What is challenging at the moment is about the US. Yeah. I do hope that, well, the people of the US, particularly the younger generation, would agree with us that the future is for everyone. It's important. So, with this strong voice from the people, perhaps President Trump would reconsider his position. No.
I think we continue to see, of course, there are more debates and so forth, but I'm very impressed to see the countries in which we intervene really remain very committed because of the long term impact, the resilience, the dimension, the, I mean, also the link with energy security, because I think we've also learned, I mean, that overdependence on fossil fuels and so forth creates energy security challenge. More decentralised green energy systems and so forth could be useful in that area in that context.
Okay. So staying the course for for those that are already on track, yes.
I think we need transparency for the consumers that they know what is the carbon footprint of a product so that they can make a choice. And I think we also need an incentive then for for low carbon products and perhaps even a taxation for high carbon products as you, as you suggested.
Okay. And you will get the last word.
Some targets will be met, some not. And what's necessary important is unanimously supported shared global vision.
Great. Okay. On that wonderful note, let me thank all of our fantastic speakers for a wonderful, thought provoking discussion and all of you for coming.
Yeah, thank you all. Thank you.