Let me pickup on the important theme of co-benefits that John Roome has so eloquently alluded to. Indeed it was the over arching message of the BAQ 2010 on air quality that I also participated in. This theme seems to be heard increasingly now and is gathering currency. Perhaps it is fed by the notion that as selfish human beings, we tend to give priority to actions with demonstrated local benefits over those with global benefits. However, if those local actions can have the 'collateral' benefit of global benefits, then it is a win-win. In fact we can even take credit for it! So if reducing local air pollution by switching from coal fired boilers for district heating to gas, reduces local air pollution and brings the added benefit of GHG emissions reduction, it would be an example of a win-win situation. This argument goes down well with developing countries for whom local benefits are a priority and who may not immediately see value in climate actions. Another way to view co-benefits is to turn the above argument on its head and look for local benefits of actions taken primarily for global good. This seems to be quite relevant given that climate funds may be significant in the coming years, perhaps even at the expense of ODA, In either case, it can make for a win-win! The new WBG environment strategy (to be released soon) embraces the co-benefits concept as an important pilar for environmentally sustainable development in the coming decade. However as its background paper notes, there is need for caution in labelling actions as co-benefits, since a some of them can also have significant costs attached to them.