Thank you. That is a great question.
I would answer it framed by risk, because in our personal lives, right up to nations and even our planet, as we heard yesterday at the carbon pricing event held by the Canada 2020 organization, this is now beyond a doubt.
Of course there will always be information gaps, whether it's science or collated local indigenous knowledge. We always try to inform best, and to upgrade our basis for decision-making. Right now we have organizations like the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the International Energy Agency releasing reports. The United Nations and the IUCN have as well. These are the best organizations that humanity can use to synthesize available information with well-informed models.
You can always find a few people who think the world is still flat, of course, but the point is that this isn't environmentalism. It's not any industry association advocating for one thing. These are the best our species across the entire planet can come up with. It says that given all the facts available, all the information and the models, this is where we're trending. We're already needing 1.8 planets at the current lifestyle we all enjoy here, so we have a problem ahead. It's all about how we choose today, at all scales, to manage the risks.
The risks are very clear. We should be leaving two-thirds of that fossil fuel reserve in the ground. That's the best information the world can synthesize. If we choose not to, then all we're doing is shunting that risk onto our children and grandchildren to deal with. Nicholas Stern, one of the world's top economists, has pronounced on this.
You know, arguably, from a habitat point of view and the livelihoods of local people, it's almost as if the current paradigms that drive our species and our economy are essentially Victorian, and we are disregarding the legacy of the risks that we're pushing onto future generations.