 Well, let's talk now to Simon Newell. He's head of policy and advocacy at Positive Money, which campaigns for what they describe as a fairer and more sustainable banking system. Welcome. Thank you very much for joining us. How much progress do you think has been made? I think this announcement from the chances they mark some progress. The transition plan is being made mandatory is a very positive step, especially the idea of it being backed by a science-based transition plan task force. These plans and task force are only as strong as the regulation behind it. I think the overarching message from both the chances of speech today and the announcement we've had from Mark Carney, from G-Fans and others, is an overall message of let's leave it to the market and the private sector to fix the problem. We're still relying on these market-based solutions, such as information gathering and disclosure, which are based on the efficient market hypothesis and the assumptions which led to the last financial crisis. Just if we increase the amount of information, markets will be able to efficiently and rationally realign. But we've seen over the past decade or decades that financial firms have known about climate risk and have done very little. The markets are still aligned with global heating far above what the Paris Agreement dictates states are committed to. We need a lot more action from governments to be leading the way in driving this transition. We can't just leave it to the private sector and the market to fix. We can't privatise the green transition. It's far too important for that. With more transparency and accountability, though, with companies having to publish their plans, at a time when obviously the trajectory is clear in terms of where we're headed, what the goals are, is that going to mean that it will be self-fulfilling because of that? Not necessarily. I think, A, we have to think about how robust the science-based targets actually are to make sure they are led by science rather than just the vested interests of industry. There's been lots of issues with disclosure and taxonomies in other places such as the EU around this. What we need, essentially, is the government and the central banks to be using their muscle to shift financial flows towards where they're needed rather than, essentially, relying on private finance to do the right thing. Sorry to interrupt you. How would that work, then? Throughout the 20th century, governments and central banks have taken large measures to essentially guide credit to where it was needed most productively. We, essentially, need to be looking at those tools again and having governments and central banks using their strategic oversight of the economy and finding out where we need investment, and then actually giving quotas towards financial firms, towards investing in strategic priorities. But what we also need more than anything is public investment. Rich, you see that talked about public investment and the importance of today, but he's not putting his money where his mouth is. In the budget, we've got a figure of 30 billion, which seems to be over three years for public investment in the green transition, whereas experts have said we need 30 billion a year to ensure a green transition. So I think public finance needs to be doing most of the heavy lifting if we're going to get a fair transition. Private finance will only invest in what's profitable and will be subsidizing those costs and paying for those costs. Renewables are not that profitable investments, so as a state, it's going to have to do a lot of the heavy lifting to make things happen. When you look at what has been happening in terms of investment in fossil fuel companies, it's actually gone up from the biggest banks in the world since the Paris Climate Agreement. There's necessarily, isn't there a transition where, I mean, when you talk about profitability for banks' investments, it can't be, you know, whatever the desire is, there has to be a process by which it and it will take time. What do you think would be a sort of realistic time frame? I mean, definitely you're right. Like fossil fuels are far more profitable than renewable energy at the moment. That's why banks like to fund it so much. You know, these are better investments for them in their balance sheets at the end of the day. You know, this is why we need to be, as I said, a state leading the way, and as you say, there needs to really be stuff in the GFAN's announcement we've had today on no more investment in fossil fuels, and we need governments to be restricting investment in fossil fuels. So the IEA, the International Energy Agency, has been quite clear on this, on the pathway we need. We need no new investment in fossil fuel expansion and new projects beyond this year if we're going to reach their pathway for net zero by 2050, as well as a tripling of green investment. So I think that's the pathway we need to be looking at. The governments and central banks need to be regulating and restricting fossil fuel investments beyond this year. Thank you very much for joining us. That's Simon Newell of Positive Money. Well, let's talk about another