 Felly, hi everyone and welcome and thank you for joining us. Give us your time today. My name is Tam Zinno Myrden. I'm an editorial director for Social Science at Spring and Nature. Thanks for joining us and welcome to this partnered event between the Sustainable Development Solutions Network and Spring and Nature. So the Covid pandemic has shown us that the world can act with urgency to tackle the biggest crisis. It's demonstrated that the focus and coordinated efforts of global canlyniadau ar gwleidydd o wybodaethau radigol yn sefydlintol, ar bob cynhyrchu gwblwch, a'r anhygoel newidid. Yn oes o'r cydweithio'r boblwch duna arall, y cydweinwch a'r gwasanaeth a'r olyg, i wych am gweithio'r boblwch i'r hyfer cydweithio a'r boblwch i'r digwydd, a'u gweithio'r cyfleig sy'n ei wneud mor? Roedden eich bodieithio yng nghymru o'r productau yma sy'n cael bod wneud o'r cyfrif erbyn跨lu. Yma yw'r cysyllt yma sy'n ddigon ddegon, ond i'w ddim yn gwneud y gweithasig. Maen nhw'n dwy'n rwy'n meddwl o'r cyfreidau cwmgoel, i obweithio i'r cyfrÔr C armor pian viwch, ond ond mae'n ad delicatell o gynllun o'r llifnos yn ymgyrch yn cael ei'r wrthyn nhw. Uscolwgon chi'n iawn i ymddangos cymrydau cyfrosag, i ddigon yw'r cyfrosag sy'n ddigon i'r cyfrosag a llifnos, i'n amlwysgwydd erais y ffawr. Mae'r gwyfawd ar gyfer'el iawniau eisiau, mae'r gwyfawd yn ddisgfoeth ar y llai ar y gwbwn o'r llai'r gynhyrchu i ymddiad hon y cyfriffyrdd sy'n ddoedd cyfrifwyrd o'r prosesu tlreadur wedi'i rhoi resistance a ffitaen naes yn unioniol ac mae'n cael ei ddweud y ffawr o'r wneud yna… y tro dim, yn y modd, ac yn eu chyfan cyfoeth yn gwybodon i'r cyfwyrd ym ni, oherwydd i gynhyrchu blynyddiadau. ychydig bwysigio fynd i gymrwysgiant maen nhw ar arfer maen nhw'n ei wneud ei wneud, ond mae wedi amser yn dod i gynnwch cymryd yn gwych, gweithio'r cyfrifiadau i'w gwasanaidd gynllunol. Eftan chi'n gynghir ein siwyddiad grechol ym oes yn gweithfeyddol, gynhyrchu, gwendig iawn ac yn niwn. Dwi'n barod mewn dda i'r ydych chi'n gael, rydyn ni'n deall ym mwynhau o'i piwn i'r hynhyngin ni'n widziadau. but I first like to introduce my colleague and co-moderator, Aaron Custer. Hello, good afternoon, good evening and good morning. My name is Aaron Custer, I'm director at academic affairs at Springer Nature, here in Berlin. And part of the team which has initiated the series of round table you're going to hear more of today. Thanks again for joining us today. The event started back around I would say, May and June 2020, y gweithio gwyllt, when a peth yn fwy o'ch par와yd dyn ni oesweithioен dweud o gwy inquartyr wedi cyfyniad gweithio angen i fynd i fynd i roi'r cyfrwyng Cymru fel yw y pethau COVID. At ysgol, mae efallai oes i ddechrau, maeen hyn yn cael ei ystyried i'r lockdowns, honu'n adm ni o'u cymryd cyfrwyng sydd wedi rhan fathogau, perio'r ddiweddau, mae ichi gweithioedd hynny o'r gwyllt i'rwerth ddechrau and i gyd. Fe yw'r cymorth cyfnodd, rwy'n meddwl i adeiladur hynny yn ymgyrcheg yn Belynedd, rwy'n meddwl i'r Chynedd yn dweud hynny, a'r ychydig y Chynedd yma sydd wedi'i gilydd i'n blynedd ar gyfer y maes yma yn y gennyddu. Mae'r cyfnodd y fath yn ei wneud yn edrych yn oed yn ei wneud yn y gallu cyfrwyng, eu cyfrwyng, yn ei cyfrwyng, o'n creu'r bobl iawn. Yn ymlaen i chi, mae'r cyfrwyng yn ymweld yn rhaid i'r amser, ac wedi cyfnod o'r ddweud o'r cymhysgwyl, rydych chi'n sefyllfa o ddweudio gwmhiliadau a gwnaethio'n ei wneud drwy'r reall, fe yna yn y gweig o'r ddweud, i fath y ddefnyddiadau eith ngai gweld seeingol ac sydd wedi hynod â rhai o fyfyrddion ar y van, a cael cyfrannu wrth yn wych yn y rhaglen i gyfnodol gyrwm ond pheth紅aroedd a chyfnodol. A'i byd y maen nhw'n gweithio'r cyfrannu. One round table to look at was the theme of behavior and the other one on inequalities. Throughout the planning, we also wanted to maintain our desire to leave the outcome completely open. We were here today summaries from both tables and please free to add questions in the queue and ABL. But first let me introduce Magdalena Skipper, editor-in-chief of Nature. Magdalena Hull said PhD in Development Genetics from the University of Cambridge. She joined Nature Reviews Genetics in 2001 as a chief editor and has taken several roles at the Nature Partner journals and Nature Communications. She became the first female editor-in-chief of the journal Nature in 2018. Welcome Magdalena over to you. Thank you. Thank you very much for the invitation and for this very kind introduction. It is indeed a great pleasure to be opening the session on the lessons that can be learnt from crises like COVID-19 and the climate emergency. Crises are well known for focusing the mind and we have certainly seen that the current pandemic has done just that. The pandemic unfolds with great speed in a highly interconnected world. And so its devastating effects can be seen pretty much immediately. By contrast, climate emergency has been unfolding for decades now and despite that knowledge, we have chosen not to act swiftly enough. Speed is of the essence when faced with a crisis. And we've had ample opportunities in the past to see that acting quickly is paramount if lives are to be saved. Back in 2002, for example, when the SARS pandemic first started, it took several months for information and data to be shared so that WHO and the world could get a true picture of the issue and set out appropriate recommendations. In the case of COVID-19, the news and data spread much faster, but not fast enough, nor was there sufficient transparency around the early disease spread to prevent or stymie the spread of the virus across Asia to Europe and beyond. Fortunately, however, the fundamental data about the virus were shared early on within the research community, and it is thanks to this sharing that we have highly effective vaccines today, the impressively rapid development of which we continue to celebrate and rightly so. This is a lesson we must take on board that in the face of a global emergency, data and information must be shared transparently across the world. Also instrumental to successful vaccine development where partnerships between private and public sectors enabled by appropriate financial support. Another crucial contributor to the success, of course, were cross-discipline collaborations. While we have the biomedical advances to thank for vaccine development, we have needed the expertise of social sciences to deal with vaccine hesitancy, for example. And it was the collaboration between social scientists and epidemiologists that has led to models of social restrictions implemented in their various forms across the globe. We will hear more about motivating behaviour change and structural inequalities in the summary from one of the round table discussions that took place last week. Both cross-sector and cross-discipline global collaborations that have served us so well in the context of COVID-19 are also necessary to tackle climate emergency. The pandemic and the climate emergency are both global crises. This may seem like an unnecessarily obvious statement, and yet in both cases, world leaders continue to predominantly think and act locally, protecting short-term national interests. Take the G20 summit, which just ended, at which the G20 leaders pledged to stop the overseas financing of coal plants, but remained silent about their own domestic production and use of coal. No one is safe until everyone is safe. We've heard this repeatedly during the ongoing pandemic. We should remember that the same applies to the devastating effects of climate change. As much as we are right to celebrate the vaccine's success, we know all too well that not everyone has benefited from them. Repeated calls for efficient distribution of vaccines across the globe for patent waivers and capacity sharing have so far gone largely unanswered, with only a few percent of the population in the global south being vaccinated. At the same time, people like me are about to receive their booster. The climate crisis parallel is the wealthy nations reluctance to finance climate solutions in the poor nations. These nations, we all agree, bear the brunt of climate change, having contributed to the current situation the least. When the figures are clear, wealthy nations have failed to fulfill their promise to deliver on the $100 billion pledge to support poorer nations. And where the finance is being considered and offered, it is predominantly done so as a loan to be repaid with interest, not as grants. Now this is very short-sighted thinking. If we are to tackle global challenges like the climate crisis, like the current pandemic, solutions need to be equitable. The second of the last week's round table panel discussions focused on structural inequalities and we will shortly hear more on this topic. Crisis such as COVID-19 or the climate emergency clearly know no borders. We should therefore focus on working together across silos, sharing information, data, technology and expertise to focus on the climate crisis. We should therefore focus on working together across silos, sharing information, data, technology and expertise to find global solutions and support one another so that these solutions can be effectively implemented locally everywhere. Global interests must come first. Thank you very much and I look forward to the rest of our session. Thank you very much, Magdalena, and I'm pleased to say that Magdalena will join us back for the panelist discussion towards the end of the session. Thank you. Our second keynote then is from Professor Jeffrey Sacks. Jeffrey D Sacks is a professor, author and advisor to governments around the world and to the United Nations. He is a university professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University and president of the UN Sustainable Development Solutions Network. He is a strong supporter of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. He is an expert on health, public health and epidemics and has advised the World Health Organization at the highest levels during the past 20 years. Hello, I'm Jeffrey Sacks, university professor at Columbia University and president of the United Nations Sustainable Development Solutions Network. I am so grateful to Springer Nature and to editor-in-chief Magdalena Skipper for co-hosting with SDSN, the important series on learning from crisis, from COVID to climate. And I'm delighted that on the eve of COP26 when the world needs to make critical breakthroughs to a new direction to sustainable development, we'll be working together to learn from the past and use our best knowledge on the way forward. I'm sure that I speak for many people when I say that each Friday for me when the weekly issue of nature arrives, it opens up new worlds of insight, scientific discovery and technological progress. It shows us how we can learn, how fast we can move forward in the direction that we need when we put the best minds together on a basis of shared principles of the common good. That is the purpose of our work together. We will be exploring the challenges of inequality, race and gender, how to close divisions in our society. We will also be looking at the questions of the most effective ways to promote behavior change for climate change so that we have a safe world. I want to give special thanks to all of my colleagues who have worked so hard to put this effort together, Helen Bond of Howard University, Gerald Torres of Yale Law School, Wolfgang Blau of the Reuters Institute and Jiying Zhao of the University of British Columbia. Thank you so much for your wonderful work to springer nature. Thank you for your wondrous contributions to the world and for this partnership to colleagues at SDSN, a network of more than 1500 universities and think tanks around the world committed to promoting the sustainable development goals and the achievement of the aims of the Paris climate agreement. Let me thank you for all your efforts, all best wishes to you, all gratitude and all best wishes to the participants in this exciting joint venture. Let's learn from crises. Let's find the way forward to sustainable development and the future we want for all. Thank you. Thank you very much for your kind words. And with this, we are going to dive straight into the report from the first round table, motivating behavior change and addressing misinformation. I'd like to welcome Professor Zhao in Wolfgang Blau. Please turn on your cameras now. So let me introduce Jiying Zhao first. She is a associate professor and Canada Research Chair at the University of British Columbia and graduated from Princeton in 2013 and is now an associate professor within the Department of Psychology at the Institute for Resources at UBC and the Research Chair in Behavior Sustainability at UBC. She also is a faculty affiliate at the Center for Effective Global Action at the University of California, Berkeley, and a member of Canada's Financial Literacy Research Subcommittee. Her research aims to use psychological principles to design behavioral solutions to address financial and environmental sustainability changes. Great, we have you here today. Our second chair is Wolfgang Blau. He is currently a visiting research scholar at the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, and is focusing on increasing journalism's capacity to cover climate change worldwide this year. But the Reuters Institute is just designed and co-founded the Oxford Climate Journalism Network together with Oxford University. He is the former President, International and Chief Operating Officer at Conde Nast. Previously, he served as the Executive Director of Digital Strategy at the Garden as an editor-in-chief of Side Online. So, Wolfgang Blau, thank you. You could find the time today and participate actively in our own tables. In these discussions, we convened representatives from journalism, psychology, media studies, environmental science and management and historians, so we had really lively discussions. So, let's start with one of the questions we asked and to report back, probably starting with you, Professor Zau, and then going over to Wolfgang Blau. What do you think are the similarities and differences between our responders to a COVID-19 crisis and the climate crisis? Thank you. So, Wolfgang and I had the fortune to talk to six experts in climate science, communication, psychology, philosophy to discuss this precise question. So, the similarities between COVID and climate change are that both are global scale problems, but the threats are experienced locally by the individuals themselves. Both problems need to be overcome globally so that there's kind of a local global differentiation for both threats, but both need global solutions. Now, there are many differences between COVID and the climate crisis. First of all, there's a vast difference in how governments responded to both. For instance, for COVID, there was immediate and massive government response to address the COVID pandemic, but we have yet seen such coordinated immediate massive government response to the climate emergency. There's also differences in agency. For COVID, there are a set of clear individual actions to take, such as, you know, getting the vaccine, wear masks, wash your hands, social distancing, for instance, but we don't have such guidelines for individual actions for climate yet. And also, world leaders publicly demonstrate their actions to address COVID, but they have yet taken those personal individual actions to address climate change. There are differences in threats. So, for instance, for COVID, there are immediate personal health threats for individuals around the world. But for climate change, the threats are experienced only to localized populations, not certainly not to everyone at this point. There are differences in risk perception. For instance, COVID is triggered by one pathogen that are identifiable. Now there are more variants around the world, so that the causes are identifiable, very clear for COVID. But for climate, all we know is human activities contributed to climate change, but it's unclear what specific activities relevant to the individual is contributing to climate crisis. And finally, there's a difference in disruptions. So there's a working assumption with COVID that, oh, after the pandemic, after we become immune to the disease, we will go back to normal, life will return to normal. But there's no return to normal for the climate emergency. We cannot expect climate change to go away. Magically, there's no immunity to climate change. So we need to understand that there's no return to normal assumption for climate. And in fact, if we don't act fast and now climate change will get worse, and we need to actually shift on normal and to adapt and to mitigate fast. So these are the kind of the similarities and differences in the behavioral response to COVID and climate change. So going over to you, what do you think are the main differences from your perspective? From a journalistic perspective, the commercial interest in spreading climate misinformation is probably larger by an order of magnitude than a commercial interest in spreading false information about COVID or being against getting vaccinated. And that has to do with the fact that the budgets of entire nations so-called petro states and some of the world's largest corporations are affected by a transition towards renewable energy. For journalists and newsroom managers, the so-called trolls that attack journalists may sound similar. And of course there is an ideological overlap between the denial of climate science and the denial of COVID. But the funding and the patience of online trolls against climate journalism is much, much larger. A wonderful parallel, though, where I think journalism has benefited from COVID journalism, is that this was the first time that what you could describe as a science story, that a science story of COVID has dominated the news for more than a year. And in my own research, I have spoken with many newsroom managers around the world that often told me that the science team is now much more integrated in a newsroom, and that is a prerequisite also for better climate journalism. One of our panelists, Professor David Holmes from Monash University, also said, the theme of flattening the curve is very similar. We have already learned the concept of flattening the curve that what you don't do now will become more costly later, and that applies to fighting COVID as much as it applies to fighting climate change. The public has also learned and newsrooms have learned to work with data a lot more and to look at charts of vaccination rates and hospitalization rates and other metrics every day. And those data sets are still largely missing in journalism, although some of those organizations are now beginning to develop their climate dashboards and show them more regularly. Thank you. So much to talk about here, but I mean, when we go back, Daisy, your work focuses on behavioral solutions. When you look at your work and the round table discussions we had, what do you where do you think are the most effective interventions where we could encourage collective behavior change to change, or to reduce climate emissions. So the most effective intervention is to use a social diffusion approach. I mean, no single intervention works for everyone. We have to recognize the variety with diversity in the in a given population. So in any given population there are different segments who have different values and different motivations and barriers for action. So what we can do is we can design these targeted interventions for these different interventions. We can even downtown Vancouver, so it's kind of noisy, but I hope you can hear me okay. So in this social diffusion project, this is what a common theme in our discussion for this question is, what are the segments in the population. So the first segment that we think is important to engage first is the trend centers. So these are, these are change agents. These are the innovators of climate actions. We include the NGOs climate scientists climate communicators researchers activists, basically innovators of, you know climate friendly technology and products. So they need to start the norm change in the first place need to signal their values and actions and create the conditions necessary for widespread adoption for climate action. We have to reach a tipping point for social movement. So in the literature there's, you know, anywhere from 2025% that's a tipping point that you need to reach before you can mobilize the action for with the majority. So that's that's that's sort of the first group. And then usually in this in this in the beginning of the social movement, there's resistance, but then policies eventually change because enough people are getting on board. So systemic change would need to happen to the government level, obviously, but it has to co occur with social movements that empower decision makers to take bold actions on climate change. So this could involve governments offering incentives for low carbon products and services governments make, making climate friendly infrastructure the default, instead of the alternative. Instead of incentivizing business to come up with affordable convenient attractive options that people will be naturally drawn to, instead of asking people to use their morals and values and personal sacrifices to act. So I think this these are the kind of the settings we have to create for collective behavior change to happen. Now with that in place, we need to engage the majority of the public, which is the 50 and 60% of population. And there we need to identify the most effective actions for people to take, and these actions include private actions, like flying less driving less eating less mean for instance, and social signaling actions like signing actions, maybe sharing certain information on climate change and initiatives, as well as system changing actions so things civic actions like voting, talking to your local politicians on climate initiatives and actions for instance. So this is what behavioral scientists can do is to, you know, to disclose this this kind of action toolkit to the public and communicators would need to bridge that knowledge gap with the public and convey the findings from behavioral science to the public effectively. Now we have the last stubborn group who are the laggers. So they involve climate skeptics and deniers. I think that's the most difficult group to engage on on climate change, but there are solutions. One is, we can use a trusted messenger, who's typically their in group role model to deliver the message, we can use their trust appear to convey information on what they need to do and how they can take it. How they can take those actions. So I think this social diffusion approaches will will we recommend as a result of the round table discussion. Thank you very much and I mean feeding off that was going in a way that was. What do you think are the most effective ways to communicate climate science and counter misinformation that a better it's disbelief skepticism and in actions. You mentioned a really important point, which is the segmentation to not think of the public as a monolith, and that is especially true when it comes to climate science. We know about various segmentation models that the Six Americas of life Australia's of Monash University. I would start with not assuming any preexisting basic knowledge that is one thing, not just prefer to the Paris agreement or to the 1.5 degree goal, which becomes even more absurd in the US where we measure temperature and Fahrenheit and it loses even that context, but to keep explaining. The second bit is to not overemphasize accidentally the concerns of that minority of climate science deniers, but to focus on the majority by now in most countries thankfully of populations that acknowledge climate science, but now need to be moved or at least informed about what the next steps are to address this urgency proportionately. So, going back to your question, Aaron, is tapishing basic knowledge, which is what I'm trying also to do within news organizations where you face a similar challenge. And second, not addressing the public as a whole but in a segmented and targeted manner as much as any possible. And then also to translate current climate science from these 2030 2050 narratives into the more immediate time ahead of us into yearly goals the next two years, the next three years, and to translate the so called climate story into what I experienced locally. Thank you very much. And that's the perfect segue in a way to hand over to Tamsen and the inequalities round table we gather group discussion. Very shortly, hopefully as well. So, as we've discussed a few times that the other round table was on inequalities and here we're obviously looking at geoplastic school but we had a big focus particularly on structures, a lot of crossover with the other round table in fact to be interesting to dig into that later. We invited participants from six countries across the so called global north as that. And to think through and talk through how inequalities affect who is impacted by the two crises and how they're impacted, how the crisis have exposed inequalities and what we need to understand about inequality in order to find effective solutions and progress. Obviously particularly crucial to gather a richly representative group of people, not only in terms of race and gender and other criteria, but to fulfill our core aim of allowing people to meet and talk who might otherwise not meet at a conference or read the same publications to get together we had medical doctors with scholars of race and gender climate change mitigation experts, a chief executive and a town mayor guessing together in a space that otherwise didn't exist. The resulting conversation was inspiring sometimes quite difficult. However, some incredible common themes started to emerge and some questions are developing around how crises are not accidental are they tools are not neutral. Is there a third crisis values and questions around who gets to construct knowledge, how do we use it. I'm sure there were many crossovers with the behavioral group as well, but on that note, I will ask around table chairs, Gerald and Helen to turn the cameras on at this point that I can introduce them. So, our chairs then were Gerald Torres who is the Professor of Environmental Justice at the Yale School of the Environment with a secondary appointment as Professor of Law at the Law School. Previously, he served at the President of the Association of American Law Schools as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division with the US Department of Justice. His work intersects the environment agriculture and food systems and social justice. Dr Helen Bond is an associate professor in the School of Education at Howard University in Washington DC. She is a full bright nearest scholars India liaison to the Center for African Studies and a founding member of the Center for Women, Gender and Global Leadership at Howard University. She is also the former director of the Center for Excellent in Teaching, Learning and Assessment. Dr Bond holds a PhD in Human Development and Co-Chairs, SDSN USA, along with a special working group on sustainability and justice. She is a research fellow at the George Eckhart Institute for International Textbook Research in Brantraig, Germany, with a deep commitment to human rights. She has served at Westford in the Human Rights Commissioner confirmed by the State Senate and as a Holocaust Institute for Teacher Education fellow with the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. She has lectured in over 20 countries and was inducted in the 2020 Alumni Hall of Fame by the Ohio State University Mansfield, her work in education and human development. Thank you to both of our chairs. So I'll ask you both if you could speak a little on what the round table gave to you and how you think the COVID-19 crisis and the climate crisis similarly or dissimily affects existing global inequalities. Well, I'll get started. We really did have a fantastic group of people coming together. I'll be reading some of their comments. I decided to address this question by looking at three major categories or buckets that you might consider of the comments. And one cross theme was this notion of this, what I'm calling the tyranny of small things. The panelists that discussed because Ebola was so impactful and so scary in West Africa and part of Africa, that people really recognize that small things can actually kill you. And so that gave them a higher acceptance of public health measures. And that was in contrast to what some considered also as human rights failing and some political failing. But there was a quite high acceptance of public health and hygiene practices, which they felt really had improved. So that's the first major concept, what I'm calling the tyranny of small things. The second was actually a quote from one of our round table panelists, never waste a good crisis. I think that people talk about this notion of what they learned from HIV in that particular time period in that particular part of the country, the importance of acting very quickly. The importance of messaging and good communication overlap a little bit there with our behavior group and felt that some of the lessons from HIV had actually informed their work in terms of COVID-19. So that it can inform climate change as well. The third bucket and then I'll stop and let my distinguished colleague take off from there, and I'm sure we'll talk a lot more about this. And that is the cumulative nature or impact of inequalities. And, you know, how an inequality in one area, inequality in terms of COVID groups that are vulnerable in COVID-19 groups that were vulnerable in HIV are also groups that are going to be disproportionately vulnerable in the climate crisis. Thank you. Thank you, Helen. One of the things that was most apparent in the discussion in the round table we had in discussing the relative roles of government. Society, private business, academia, et cetera, was by focusing on the responses that the COVID crisis generated. And as the earlier discussion suggested, the immediacy of the COVID-19 pandemic produced a couple of things. When it galvanized action, it highlighted the complications of politicizing knowledge. And it led to the conclusion that we needed to act what the particular action would be, of course, was a subject of a lot of debate and continues to be. But we needed to act to alleviate potentially catastrophic consequences, shutting down the economy, the economy importing institutions no longer being able to function. The main import of particular civil society institutions being sidetracked, the need to act because it emerged from the immediate impact of COVID in some ways revealed to us a couple of things. And the discussion was particularly strong in this area. It highlighted the way in which the potential catastrophe represented by climate is still in many quarters across those various institutions viewed as a crisis that we have the opportunity to address. Rather than experience it as a crisis that is currently happening. So the different institutions take the temporal dimension of the crisis and what that temporal dimension of the crisis reflected was a sense of urgency to come to particular policy judgments or particular actions that would directly address the crisis. So I think that was the first major takeaway, which is that the temporal dimension of any particular crisis will have policy implications. Because if people feel as if there is a potentially catastrophic crisis, but it hasn't yet occurred. Then the feeling that we have the opportunity to to act at a rather more leisurely pace will dominate the discussion. One of the things that the panelists talked about was the need to translate the kind of emergency or the kind of the sense that that there is a need for action. And today was what was critical. So let's look at the various institutions government civil society private business academia. The other thing that the panelists highlighted is that the imperatives, each one of those sectors are different. So how you produce action in each area is going to represent a different set of criteria, but they were clear to recognize that action in one sector is necessarily going to produce reactions or potential for action in other areas. So one of the things that we need to study was was how did action in one sector move other sectors consistent with its own imperatives to act. As we face the climate crisis academia has a special role to play in this to this extent. And it's been some ways catalyzed by the COVID-19 crisis. What it led to was a an impressive cross disciplinary effort to basically bring with the various disciplinary perspectives have to bear on the solution to the problem. Public health, speaking to the hard sciences, speaking to the social sciences, even speaking to to the humanities, and each of those different sectors had a role to play and the immediacy, the crisis generated incentive for cross disciplinary work to occur. And in some ways got us out of the silos that we typically inhabit. Similarly, the, the, the cross disciplinary nature that was reflected in academia was also reflected in cross scalar activities in governmental active action. We had action at the federal level action state level action at the local level, and there had to be coordination, and that need for coordination was, I think a parent. It was acted on, but it also was a source, and people noted this of political dissension. The questions of the distribution of power were, were never far from, never far from from the, the concern civil society and all the intermediate institutions those institutions stand between the individual and the state have their own particular roles to play and they're going to be different now private industry. In the context of both COVID and climate, recognize that solutions are going to be nested there well be there, of course going to differ depending on which particular industry, but, but I think the main takeaway was that the crisis produced conversations across sectors across disciplines across scales. And that's something that we can take to the need to take to the discussion of climate. I'll stop there. Thanks very much, Gerald. I'm aware that there was so much more in our round table that we could keep talking about so I will ask both of you to hold your next set of thoughts for the panel discussion if that's okay. I'll move on now then to invite all of our panellists to turn their cameras back on, including our keynote speaker Magdalena, and see if we can get a discussion going across the two round tables at this point. My first question I'll put to you then is that one topic often discussed was the distinction between different audiences, their role in disseminating information and the magnitude of their impact. What are the different audiences and what audiences have the biggest impact potential. Please just jump in whenever you have a thought. I will, I will try not to talk to any more than is necessary. But, but one of the things that in the earlier discussion that I thought was was incredibly important and it was actually raised in our panel as well, which is the differently segmented segmented and recognizing the differently segmented publics. And coming to terms with what flows from that observation is incredible. I would like for Dr Sound to talk about the social diffusion and one of the things that that is important to me right and I think it was important on the panel to was figuring out the way ideas both malign and positive flow through the society, because that was highlighted in our panel. You have good information and bad information, and it just seemed like both horses are right at full speed. And how do we approach that so that's a question I guess I'm just the reporters from the other panel, and maybe Helen wants to weigh in as well. Yeah, I think to me the, the most important segment of the different ways to find that, but the change agents, the trendsetters are the most important first. And then we can diffuse their actions, their messages across to the early adopters early majority. So, different ways of diffusion. I think, again, depending on the motivation, some people are, they can't wait to jump on board. So for the keeners, I think it's easy for them to adopt the action as long as it's, it's affordable, it's accessible. It's realistic for them, for instance, whereas for the more hesitant populations, like the late majority segment, they probably need more convincing. So they'll wait to see what happens to the people, and they eventually want to do what other people are just doing so that's the herd herd mentality of this group. So I think we need to kind of reach the first first movers. But then the greatest impact comes from comes the majority, like that's when the majority of the public actually acted. But they have to act on the conditions that, you know, the actions are available, affordable, easy, attractive, etc. So that's just my thoughts and over to Ellen. Yeah, I'd like to talk a little bit about trusted messengers. That was a really a theme in our particular session, the use of people that communities trust and have confidence in to really carry these messages. And I know in the African American community, there was a major trust issue. And one of our panelists talked about in the HIV, as well as in the COVID, they use pastors and people of the faith. And a good example, though, to really look at the population that you're working with and consider their culture. I'm a big component of culture of centering culture and whatever solutions, you know, that that you approach. For example, you know, in Nigeria, this notion we have in the States Hollywood in Nigeria, you have nollywood creates over 20 billion jobs a year. And so the UN actually used a nollywood a Nigerian actress toy in Abraham as a UN messenger about hygiene, you know, and about COVID-19. So, you know, one thing that that I, I didn't get to say the first time around that I actually meant to say is really thinking about the culture and centering culture and all the decisions and policies, you know, that that, you know, in terms of audiences and communication and information. I raised my hand, I'm not sure. Macdalena, please. Go ahead and speak. So, I have a comment and a question to the panel actually, since, you know, I am here a non expert amongst experts. So far what we've been discussing is communicating and influencing from the decision makers and from the policy makers to the general society and the general public. We can discuss the same, but in the other direction. And so here I want to connect with something that Gerald's Gerald said about how COVID-19 and the climate crisis of course unfolded different timescales very clearly something I alluded to as well. And how the difficulty that we have certainly in the global north is that we don't feel tangible effects necessarily of the climate crisis. Well, that's just for us in the global north. If I was today speaking from an island state, or if I was a crop farmer, then my perspective will be very different and my sense of urgency would be very different. I'm saying this in particular is because just earlier today I saw an incredibly powerful tweet. Hashtag cop 26 from a farmer from Nigeria, who was standing in front in front of his field where he had stunted crop in his field, all as a result of anomalous weather, complaining about the fact that he was not represented at the plant. So based on your experience and your knowledge, how can we empower, I guess people to communicate and reprioritise for the policy makers and the governments. We've had a great stand from Wolfgang, but I mean, you could probably also come in on that or does somebody else want to volunteer. First was how do we influence the policy makers, there's two things one one to my greatest point is incredibly important right because you know climate change is not a problem that's going to happen it's a problem that's happening. Right and and and and being able to communicate that clearly, even in the global north, or maybe especially the global north is is important. I do on on social movements. One of the things that that is critical is is understanding what the capacities are both for social movements to produce the impetus for legal change, and cultural change that can be durable. Now, where you have working democratic processes. That's the first qualification, we can take the rest of the day talking about that, but where you have working democratic processes, figuring out how to access those processes in a way that reflect the voices that the social movements are producing is the critical movement. So, I mean, as you know the jokes that people like to make up here is, you know, politicians may not know many things but they know how to count. Right. And we need to, we need to reinforce their necessity account. And that's why the environmental movement, the climate change movement has got to be a movement. It's not just a political interest. And that's the critical. That's, that's the direction we have. I just like to say very quickly, including, you know, one really impactful thing someone said in our group is that, you know, we're speaking from a very narrow experience where academics were authors, and we don't necessarily, you know, doesn't necessarily have a vision and include the voices of, of, of, for example, that the Nigerian farmer, you know, I had a discussion with a an African climate change activist, and she said, you know, what we don't hear about is that there are three glaciers, three glaciers, three mountain glaciers in Africa. You have, you know, Mount Kenya, you got mountain Rangori and Uganda, and of course the one we all know Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania. And all three will be deglaciated by 2040 and Mount Kenya is expected to be deglaciated a decade earlier than that. She says, you know, you, we don't hear those those stories. You know, we hear about other places in the world and maybe by including, you know, you know, we're a very academic, you know, panel, but just including those voices early on. And speaking to Gerald's preference to his social movements. A lot of times, thinking about the civil rights movement in the United States where, you know, you had what I call the civil rights men, you know, leading the way Martin Luther King and you didn't hear the voice is a Fannie Lou Hamer. So I'll just let that some some others. Thank you. My friend, if I may, I'd like to add a thought that comparison between covert and climate change. And that is that in in so called covert communication of national health institutes the media and governments. There was a clear set of action we all knew and know what we're expected to do as citizens. Social distancing, getting vaccinated, wearing masks, working from home as long as that makes sense. There's very clear actions. It seems to me that when it comes to fighting climate, there is no comparable set of actions. And from journalism and journalism research, we know that one of the most sought after types of content of journalism are lists of what I can do as an individual. And they tend to perform really well in terms of audience metrics. But those lists are so terribly easy to shoot down through what about this man also real scientific evidence that puts them into question. So sometimes during our wonderful panel discussions I wondered if we haven't reached a point where we know more about the behavioral science in how to move societies into action then we actually do about what those most important actions are at an individual level. And how to find that balance that Michael Mann and others have written about in their recent books that we shouldn't be in a juxtaposition of personal action versus regulatory and government action but they need each other. But what is the most consequential personal behavioral change for which we need the social sciences to to activate them. Yeah, that's an excellent point Wolfgang, and I think that's a knowledge gap that behavioral scientists, social scientists and communicator journalists communicators need to get out. But I think going back to the inequality issue that Magdalena talked about I think there's again other parallel between COVID and climate change. With COVID the victims people who have, you know, passed away from COVID are primarily people from the lower economic status. The lower income individuals are better insulated and protected from COVID. And very much the same story goes with climate change. With the global north, our GHG emission capital is huge compared to the global south individual. And yet it's these island nations these lower income countries or development countries that are suffering. The most severe consequences of climate change. Again, the global north are better protected against that. How do we abridge this inequality at this, you know, injustice. I think I want to draw one kind of behavioral science lesson from the Syrian war. I don't know if you remember, there was a new story about a Syrian boy that was washed on the beach. And the boy was dressed in, you know, colorful clothes, and it was a very sad story that drew a tremendous international response to the Syrian war. I think that kind of messaging and communication needs to happen with climate victims and refugees. We're not hearing the stories from Kenya from, you know, most communities that are suffering from climate change consequences. We need to hear more about these individual stories that are vivid and make us think that this could happen here. This could be our child. I think this is the connection that communication and journalism need to work on with any draw informed by behavioral science insights. I want to say one thing that I didn't get to mention, and it would really be a mishap, because our group really did focus on it, is drilling down on the impact of women and looking at it in different ways. You know, there's been this discussion. First of all, there's one out of every 300 African American children are now orphans. Drilled down even further, there's been discussion around whether boom or bust, because pregnancies and all that still carries on, even in pandemics. And whereas in the United States, it's a bit of a boom, you're seeing a drop in pregnancy, but in least developing countries. I mean, you're seeing a boom, it's more of a bust in the US for pregnancy and that has gone down over the pandemic. But then women have, because of the pandemic and as well as climate change, they don't have access, you know, to those kind of health services. Drilling down even more in another direction, which is very interesting and was mentioned in our round table, women that are career women and scientists. Their impact in terms of mothering their impact on their publication and their careers. And so that's an area that really we need to be, I think, very, very mindful of. I was reading an article just recently about someone was projecting that now because of the pandemic, people are more at home, they're working from home, that duties will be shared. They're between the sexes. And I thought, well, that's your really kind of implying that that first most people are married in the typical households and that one partner or both partners are able to stay at home. And we know that in terms of inequalities, a lot of people that don't have access to education and other things tend to have forward customer facing people facing jobs that really lends them more to to be more vulnerable. Thank you. One thing maybe to kind of move us on to another question, which was also important in our discussion, which we had was this kind of tension between facts and creating a narrative to motivate on climate change. So how can we find those strategies and how do we find ways to define uncertainty when we talk about science. So who wants to take that question. Right now. Maybe to illustrate the question more and how it came up in our panel, which is that. News organizations have learned a lot about how to report on conflicts, good conflicts between governments and their scientific advisors during COVID. And we have even seen different scientists propose different vaccination strategies, for instance. But news organizations are still worried that as soon as they question the scientist that that will be instrumentalized by science deniers. And that the basic understanding of how to work with scientists is lacking still in the public. That there's a difference between having two scientists argue with each other versus, for instance, having an outright COVID denier arguing with the scientists that those are two totally different things, which you of course understand. But it's still something that news organizations are shying away from. So how do you which both COVID and the climate crisis being ultimately science topics that need a much greater degree of basic scientific literacy in our populations and the news media. How do you also discuss doubt as a key feature of science. I'm not sure you want to lead with that formulation. But you do have to. It seems to me explain kind of the process of, I mean, I'm not sure how you do this right because you have to explain the process of hypothesis creation, testing, etc. Which implies, you know, lack of certainty at the outset. It seems to me that the the anti both in COVID and in climate. It's, it's not so much that there is distrust of the science. It's that there's distrust of institutions of power through which the science is communicated. And so the the the institutions that communicate the science are viewed as as having a specific political agenda and and thus illegitimate to some extent, and that's where that's that's where the the disconnect is. And that's why the, the, the, the, I think was Helen that mentioned right and maybe touch us out, the question of culture actually is, you know, remains a really critical, really critical part of this so you know I we mentioned it in our panel briefly but but it's either the, I think we mentioned in the context of, I can't even remember now. I'm not going to say because I don't have my notes. But, but, but when I, when I suggested earlier that the humanities matter to right it's it's it's the question of how we get the narratives that will be effective in the general popular discussion, which can help lead to a really, I don't know if you can really do my son has been dealing with us but but I think part of the problem is that is that the voices that are communicating the science and be legitimised and that's the crisis with this. I often wonder if some of the issues we discussing now may not be solved or helped by greater transparency. So, for example, this issue of trust in science or wavering trust in science brought upon changing position that scientists take vis a vis a specific question or specific issue. To those who practice science is of course not surprising. We know science is not religion. It's not immutable in the face of new facts being discovered. Scientists changed the position and we have a slogan saying that science progresses by self correction, etc etc. But somehow along the way, there has been this narrative that that became created that science is immutable. But now all of a sudden if it turns out that scientists need to change the position. This may lead to a conclusion of how well maybe all along they had no idea what they were talking about of course that is clearly not the case. So I wonder if this is in fact an opportunity for us, for example, to be much more transparent about the scientific method, how conclusions are arrived, that when conclusions are made, they're made in a context. They're always made in a context. And when that context changes, the conclusions may change, etc etc. Another thing, another comment to what you just said Gerald. Sometimes lack of trust in science is associated with suspicion around how science is funded and enabled. So again, a greater transparency around that so effectively a conflict of interest type of a transparency could help that matter further. I agree with you I do, I do the one caution and Helen Yacht remind me if I if someone said this on our panel I can recall. Transparency is absolutely a value that ought to be prioritized. If we're going to try to generate increasing legitimacy for the voices that are conveying conveying the information. But as Wolfgang, or maybe I said, you know the, the, you know, communicating the uncertainty which is part of the transparency. At this, at this moment that we're in, right is not necessarily helpful. But but but but but but it's essential to the, to the, to the, to the, the, the, the process right it's essential to the, the, the way science works essential the way any scholarship works, which is you know you have a provisional hypothesis. Is it a question or you try to get evidence. You know, I think the, you know, being transparent is critical. But it runs the risk of say of the, you know, the on the one hand on the other hand kind of argument or the what about is some kind of arguments and, you know, you know, as I sit and watch my own country. And we're, we're deeply in the throws of that. And finding our way out of it is the, is the challenge. Yeah, I think it's important to clarify what scientific uncertainty means. And it's also important to convey the scientific consensus, for instance on climate change. It's that there are there is uncertainty, but we're not disagreeing with each other here. Right, so that that's important to convey. And I think that in terms of the language of uncertainty, I think there are ways to kind of improve that, because when the public here uncertainty, they think we don't know what we're talking about. Well, we don't, you know, we don't know enough. So I think we can maybe move away from certainty uncertainty to something like these are the range of possibilities. Or here's the chance of each outcome from happening, for instance, so, so it's not, you know, maybe bypass the word uncertain, but just to say, you know, there are possibilities of different outcomes. Cornell University recently published his paper again stating that when they sampled 11,000 papers on the human made causes of climate change and stated it's it's a certain it's 99% certain. And journalism has amplified that as scientific certainty climate change is human made. But that has maybe also set up a bit of crap for ourselves because there are many other areas where we do not have that same degree of certainty. And we're now also politically in the situation as I'm here in Glasgow where we need to make decisions over climate change mitigation adaptation that have to have to be right for what they do over the course of the next decade 3040 sometimes 50 years. And of course, that brings a much greater degree of uncertainty and downright speculation. And I agree with Macdalena that transparency is key, but it will, it will make scientists and science more vulnerable again against what what about isn't that will try to exploit that. If I could briefly jump in, there's one more question I wanted to ask before we move into the Q&A. We're kind of getting into areas around the construction of knowledge, the trust around knowledge detractors. And in our panel, a big theme that came up towards the end was the format in which we'd put this series together, who we'd pick to be involved, why we'd pick those people and who wasn't at the table, and what that means for the construction of knowledge. Can I ask the panel just before we move to the audience, because the audience have been asking some questions around this as well. What limitations do we see in the construction of knowledge, and how can we make sure all types of knowledge is captured to help us move forward in the climate crisis. I'd just like to say something real quickly. As we think about centering culture, the culture has a long memory. And in some communities, you know, they question what are the aims of science, and when you intersect that with the aims of science with all the other economic and and vulnerabilities they have if you're not doing right by me and education if you're not doing right by me and health. How can I trust that you're going to do right by me and science, whatever that is to to to agree. So I think that's been somewhat overcome, and there's been a lot of talk about the Tuskegee history, the Tuskegee experiment with African Americans, but now African Americans really have a really good vaccination rate. So there are some lessons there. They were using trusted messengers in other ways. They've been able to, you know, even though culture has a long memory, they were able to sort of, you know, rise to that moment. I know Gerald had some comments. No, no, no, no, no, no, I was I unfortunately have to leave in a couple of minutes. I apologize. But it's an important for important thing. I've got to go talk on environmental justice so it's actually completely consistent. But, but, Tamsen, I wonder if you would restate your question. Yes, so the construction of knowledge, what limitations do current practices and I suppose I'm here as a publisher as well we play a part in this. Who's not at the table when it comes to construction and knowledge and what role is that playing, particularly on structural inequalities and stopping us moving forward in the climate crisis. It was a big question. It was a big question in one session. I mean, if anybody has five minutes on that. Well, let me just say that one thing that I use even in law, and I recognize it when I'm meeting the teaching in the law school or in the school environment is I use literature because there are stories being written. There's films being made that that help you get to a position where you can then start to use, you know, more objective techniques to explore the issues that are raised, but but in some ways it's a kind of In some ways you what you have to reinforce and I think the, you know, the, the, the endeavor that you're undertaking is really critical here springers and take is really critical here that in some ways science is the democratic creation knowledge. Right, it is the way in which knowledge the way in which everyone contributes to the creation of knowledge. There's training obviously that's necessary for it, but it's not close to anyone who wants to investigate. That's the key. And, and you know, it's, it's, I think as long as viewed as, you know, eggheads telling you what you have to do, they're going to be people who are going to resist that. And as opposed to, to, to really exploring how, you know, the, the, the scientific method is a democratic process of knowledge creation, and that's that's a critical insight that people forget. I mean, it remember science was the was the anecdote to to to to to authoritarism. Right. Yeah, yet still it moves who can forget that. Right. Yeah, but what good pointer. So, so I guess one way in terms of communication or knowledge knowledge creation is, we have to recognize that the information would present is not necessarily information people heard. Right. Science only applies in a given context under very specific conditions. And that's also why we're seeing sort of the replication crisis in social sciences, because we're not able to kind of recreate the results in a given in a different population, etc. So I think we need to again take the cultural context into account when we communicate science will have to maybe, you know, use a narrative or storytelling frame that's culturally appropriate. So the audience actually hears what we intend to express. Absolutely. Absolutely. And I think worth going to storytelling. That's part of an important part of work for Jonathan to frame things in a in a in a proper way. Do you want to come in maybe on that. Yeah. A typical theme in my work with news organizations is, at least in Europe and the US, little less so in Asia, is that climate. Port is limited to me that now for the first time they have a sufficient budget, their chief editor supports them, but the news desk editor who decides whether that story makes it into a prime time this slaughter will be promoted on the main social media account is often the obstacle when asked why it is because they say the stories don't work well. And there are many exceptions. I don't want to say that climate journalism doesn't perform well in audience metrics, but it often struggles. And when I then looked at the criteria by which news desk editors decide you just see the influence that that our psyche has in wanting to have stories with people with persons with events. And the criteria by which news organizations decide is is it recent climate change is is now, but it's always also there in the future so you could write about it another time. And news are people personification and events over processes and the climate crisis is primarily a process. And our psyche in how we're being told fairy tales as children, we really want stories and people and events more than abstract formulations about processes. And that is why I think culture point that Gerald made earlier culture and the arts getting engaged is so crucial. Many scientists, I think put a lot of energy into reaching out to the press. And I wish there are similar efforts to to get in touch and collaborate with cultural institutions with gaming platforms and others that convey stories of some sort. Thank you. And unfortunately, I don't have to move, but I kind of like to move us to some question of the audience. That one, which was actually the first one, which came in, which we also discussed is the question, how do we cope with the humongous mental pressure from pandemic and climate change and I really like that question wanted to pose it. So thank you for answering it for for for putting it to us. So who wants to start on that. Maybe Jay Z, you want to start from your side. Yeah, I'm trying to decode mental pressure. I take that as the pressure on people's mental health. That's one interpretation. The other interpretation is the pressure of, you know, to act the urgency to act to address both crises. You know, we see both from COVID and climate change is we see equal anxiety. We see anxiety of our, you know, immediate future. I think that the toll that both crisis plays on the human mind has been tremendous. But COVID, I think for COVID the mental toll makes is expected to be short lived. We expect to go back to normal and resume our lives as usual. As soon as everybody is immune with climate I think the mental toll is persistent it's going to be even more devastating as the years come. So I think how do we cope with that. I think with with COVID there are clear individual actions as Wolfgang said that we can take to make up to protect ourselves. And climate, what are those actions. So again, I think we need to convey that there are actions you can take to one, reduce your own environmental impact or climate impact. Two is to call upon leaders and decision makers to change policies to change, you know infrastructure for instance. So there are, I think, giving people the toolkit to act is going to help with with such anxiety. I think we need to deal with that because you really, I mean, how do you deal with the mental health side of it because you really started discovering kind of going quite deeply into that. And when you kind of in your work over the last year, especially. In journalism, there quite a lot is known about the mental stresses for war reporters. Very little about the mental health of journalists who cover the climate crisis full time. So far is the understanding that the stress is not so much from looking at negative scenarios for the future but results more from the cognitive dissonance between what I'm seeing and what I think the rest of my newsroom is seeing or how much urgency they attribute to that topic. And I spoke to a couple in my interviews of this last year to a couple of journalists who told me they were planning to leave that topic again, because they found it unbearable to feel so alone. That is that is one of the early things we're seeing from research that Monash University has done where they compared. It's too long to describe as an experiment but what they saw is that taking personal action, changing your diet changing your travel behavior, insulating your home all the many things you can do that that also serves as a coping mechanism and increases your ability to engage with the information about the climate crisis itself. I'd like to add something on that as well, especially from the point of an educator. I'm working on a piece now around disaster risk reduction education. Enabling teachers to work with students around understanding risk and this notion of preparedness. I don't see this at all in that much in at least schools I know in the US, but I think that's an element that needs to be and it can be, you know, intertwined interconnected with with public health. People students young people to understand this notion of disaster preparedness risk, how to properly appropriate risk in their own life. I think it's really important. Thank you. Go ahead. There are just two to your question of how to how to convey also this potentially very demoralizing information, not only how to work on it ourselves and with it from the so called constructive journalism movement out of Denmark or the solutions journalism movement out of the US. We have studies that show that if journalism about the climate crisis contains references to to what one can do individually or what is being done at a corporate or government level. That audiences readers viewers listeners are more willing to engage with that kind of journalism and also to return to that publication. Thank you. I was going to bring in another great question some very good ones I didn't have much time we're going to have. It's another one for Professor gel, actually, but I think there's parallels between both groups. How do you go from the first adopters to the herd. Fast enough, I think this relates also had into groups discussion around individual action versus structural issues as well. Anybody wants to start maybe professor. I think there's the current narrative of climate actions is that you have to sacrifice you have to give up some things like give up meat to adopt the plan based diet. That narrative is not going to help the diffusion process. I think what we need to do is for the trendsetters to come up with options or actions that people will be naturally drawn to anyway. So what are the, you know, plan based food options that people would love. I mean, I think there are options out there but but you know, they're not the adoption rate is still pretty low for many reasons. But I think we need to stop the sort of this this tremendous trade off between the visual kind of well being and the collective well being I know ultimately there's no such trade off. But I think to engage the majority, we need to we need to make sure that, you know, the options that you put forward, the infrastructure available is going to work for the people. So that's I think that's the bottom line. Anybody wants to add anything and I mean Anna Helen does this relate to kind of more structural inequalities as well culture is at the table kind of issues. Anybody else. I mean, I mean, I mean, what I can say is, I mean, we, we definitely want to continue this discussion, we just, we believe we started something really, really interesting. We of course work towards this event, but we'll continue working together and hope to get to something publishable as well and maybe continue with that. So definitely for the audience definitely stay in touch with what is going on at SDSN or Sprigganator on this. Have you heard about that? There are still several unanswered question open. Some also about the stories about animals to communicate on which we partially covered. So for us, it's just the beginning of a journey and be very much hoped to continue this journey time that do you want to add anything to that from your perspective. No, that's it. Perfect. I mean, there were lots of questions in the chat. I wish I could have said, you know, answering every single one. Thanks everyone. Thanks to our panellists. Thanks to our partners. And yeah, there is much more to come and we hope to stay in touch with you. And good luck in Wolfgang in Glasgow. I don't think we mentioned that you are actually on site to take some of these points into some of your conversations which you are going to have. Thanks everybody. Thanks. Thanks a lot. Bye bye. Thank you.