Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent)

I did not really get an answer on the question of the equity point. It does seem that it is modelled on that point in 2050 and where we are there, rather than the common but differentiated responsibility in the interim period, as to how the next decade or 20 years are used. I would appreciate a description of the 15 scenarios and some of the assumptions, including the economic assumptions, because it does sound like there are many economic assumptions being applied on how these scenarios are being envisaged.

There are a number of economic scenarios. If we could get those in writing, it would help us to tease them out. Are there intentions to remodel based on the very significant fact, for example, of the United States having left the Paris Agreement based on the revised concerns?

On a related note, I am concerned that I am seeing a level of almost greenwashing as regards technology that is coming through. We can imagine a scenario where it can help, but in terms of any new major energy usage at this point, is it not the case that we need to have a very rigorous cost-benefit analysis which looks to the full assessment of cost and impact? Ultimately, are we going to use more energy than we have left on this planet for AI and chatbots, or are we going to use it for the developing world to be able to build sewage infrastructure or solar capacity? Those are some of the choices in terms of how much energy is left to be used.

I would like an answer on fairness. Why not go for fair-share modelling? Looking at different forms of gases does not prohibit doing the fairness modelling. Could we get one? At this stage, we still have time. To be clear, I refer to global fairness modelling.