Yes, although I'm open to discussion. What I'm really trying to do is find a way of bringing these things together, finding some common ground, so my first thought was whether this is the right sequence. I'm still not sure.
The first order of business would be an update on the urgency of the matter, the kind of thing that Nicholas Stern was talking about, where we have a confluence of scientific and economic information, the cost of business as usual, if we do nothing.
The next one would be the potential costs of doing something. What are the risks of taking more aggressive action? Nicholas Stern puts it at 1% of GDP. We have lots of witnesses, who can be condensed a bit--lots of folks from industry associations, particularly the oil and gas sector, who are going to give us short-term costs. We don't need them all, but we can get a fairly good--so a kind of economic cost of action, according to some. And we'll have a balanced list there.
That was sessions one and two, if we can pull this off.