 Global Just Recovery Gathering. It's a real pleasure to and privilege to be with you today. For this panel on climate solutions can only succeed with justice at the heart. So without further ado, I'm going to introduce you to our three wonderful speakers on this panel. We are privileged to be joined by Nimo Basi, who's director of the ecological think tank home of Mother Earth Foundation. He's an architect, poet, writer. He's got an incredible CV having done so much wonderful work in the environmental space and has written a number of really wonderful books. His book to cook a continent was one of the books that really inspired myself to get in the climate space. So it's a real privilege to have Nimo here and personally just really nice to have one of my own heroes to speak on climate justice. So thank you Nimo. One of our other wonderful guests is Suanur Raman, and he is the founder of YouthNet for Climate Justice. It's a voluntary youth network for youth, which aims to raise awareness and tackle the effects of climate change in Bangladesh. Suanur is doing incredible work for his young age. And a lot of his work started after Cyclone Sidder in Bangladesh and has been doing incredible work to raise awareness, to really ensure that the solutions that we are pushing forward are real meaningful solutions and not false promises. So it's a real pleasure to have you with us. And last but certainly not least is Teresa Anderson, who is climate policy coordinator of Action Aid International. She leads Action Aid's climate policy work on land, food and agriculture and coordinates the climate action networks working group on agriculture and Action Aid has been doing really incredible work for justice at the core of climate. So it's really great to have you with us Teresa and really great to have you all here. So to kick off, I wanted to start with a question about your work and its relation to justice. So what in a nutshell does justice mean to you and how is it relevant in your work. Thanks so much Alex and thank you so much to 350 for holding this really exciting gathering at this really critical time. It's an absolute honor to be here with all of you on the panel and everybody out there being part of this collective moment. So the question and the framing of this session I think it's super timely. And coming to your question about what climate justice means to me to Action Aid. I think I can answer that on two levels. First of all, when it comes to the geopolitics, let's say, of climate negotiations which is a world in which I work and probably many of the audience work in too. But us that means that the polluting countries you know the corporations the individuals that have done the most to cause the climate problem, and who have in fact benefited from a century of industrialization. Many centuries of colonialism and exploitation have to take responsibility for fixing this climate problem. And that means doing the fair share of action to solve the climate crisis. And it means that the countries and communities who've done least to cause the climate problem, who have the least capacity, who are on the front lines of the climate crisis, you know the communities that are suffering the worst impacts of droughts of cyclones of floods rising sea levels. The countries and communities are supported to cope with the impacts and are given financial support, you know to transition to greener pathways and are bullied into carrying an unfair burden to fix a problem that they didn't cause. So that point about who's responsible for causing the climate crisis who needs to do the most to step up to fix it. And it goes to the core of the fight in the UN climate negotiations and is in fact responsible for a lot of the deadlock that we see around the world. But that is basically why we call for climate justice and equity and what it means in that geopolitical context. But when it comes to what solutions look like on the ground, we also need to make sure that social justice is at the heart of climate action. And, and it's about going beyond making climate calculations based on carbon or greenhouse gases alone, or even just counting the impact on trees and polar bears which as much as we love them is really about understanding what climate impacts and climate policies mean for people. So for example, when we put in place climate policies, climate programs projects, it means having an understanding of what those policies are doing, how they're going to affect people on the ground. So does it affect people's livelihoods and jobs, does it affect people's food security, their access to land, whether people are gender, whether projects are gender responsive, or do they exclude or possibly even harm women disproportionately. Do these policies actually address inequalities, or do they actually exacerbate them? Unfortunately, there are a lot of policies and solutions put on the table but do not ask those questions and that's why it's really important to put social justice at the heart of climate action. And of course it's always really important to, when you consider those people involved, do they get a say in how those policies get rolled out? Do they get to shape a better future for themselves? Do they get the support they need to make that leap? Or do they get to say no if it's going to harm them? So these are the questions that help us make sure climate action is based on climate justice. So I am a youth activist and I work for climate justice and we believe we cannot achieve climate justice without gender justice and wider social justice. But climate solution without justice are doomed to fail. False climate solution like carbon capture, clean coal technologies, transitioning to natural gas will keep communities engulfed in energy property. If we truly want climate solution to work for impacted communities, then we have to make a just transition to renewable energy. Government have to make young people part of the solution and involve them in the decision making process. It is after all the young people who will be leaders tomorrow and we are not fighting for future, also fighting for present. We mobilise young people, we are advocating with the decision maker, policy maker, and we are holding national governments and global communities to fulfil their promise which were not made. And they are doing their business as well with empty words. So we cannot be distracted by false solution, allowing the climate crisis to continue, the ex-executive is apparently affecting those who have contributed the least to the real problem. We are running out of time and we must act now. For me and my people in Bangladesh, climate crisis is already a reality. It's not prediction. The impact of climate crisis are already getting worse with cyclone gaining more strength, record breaking floods and rising sea levels. By 2050, half of the Bangladesh will be underwater due to climate crisis. Every day, people from the coastal region are forced to dispel us to the cities in search of livelihood as their farmland and houses get destroyed due to climate impacts. So these countries should stop bankrolling the fossil fuel industry at home and abroad. Work with climate portable nation like Bangladesh and support renewable energy development through finals and technology transfer. Thank you. Thank you very much Teres and Sohano. You both used the hammer to hit the nail on the head on this issue. Really, the work that I do with my colleagues is basically completely based on justice, whether it's about climate or whether it's about food or even about sharing knowledge. Everything must be on the platform of justice. And this means to us that when it comes to climate change, climate action, we have to strive to go back to the fundamentals. Where did the problem come from? Who is responsible for the problem? When we lay our fingers on where the origin of the problem is, then we can begin to talk of the solution. Now, if the solution is to be carried out by the victims, by those who have suffered the impacts and without creating the problem, contributing to the problem in the first instance, that means there's no justice. And so I'm sure we're going to hear more about this as this conversation continues. The multilateral system itself tried to recognize this fact by bringing in the common body differentiated responsibilities clause in the original. Well, still, limping along in even the Paris Agreement. So, basically to me, climate justice requires in our work that we have to decolonize climate action. We have to look at the roots of the crisis, of the multiple crises. You can't look at climate change in one silo. If you just look at climate change as counting the carbon in the atmosphere and that's the beginning and the end of it, then of course you miss the whole lot of what is going on. It's a social issue. It's an economic issue. It's even a political issue. We have to look at the entire ambience and all the injustices involved in water-generated problem. And it also means to us, but so on in the current global division of labor where one sector of the world, especially global south, is just to provide the raw materials to be trashed, to extract things, and then to dump also the waste on the same region, and then expect the region also to carry out the bulk of the climate action. It means to us that we have to recognize justice not just in terms of humans, but also the rights of Mother Earth. Mother Earth has a right to maintain her cycles, and whatever we do, the degradation we do, the distortion humans do, that affects, basically disrupts nature is also unjust. Justice not just for, as I said, human beings, but for all beings and for Mother Earth itself. And one of the key ways that we really get offended about this thing is when people are forced into carbon slavery. In other words, you see nature, you see a tree as a carbon sink and somebody's forced to watch after that tree, even negating everything else, even a sense of dignity and a sense of life. So it's a whole lot of things, a part in this notion of justice. It's about lives, about respect, and about dignity. Thank you for that. These answers are really helpful. And I think it's helping us to unpack that the climate issue and the questions of justice are so multifaceted and they connect across the very economic systems and at the heart of the extractive sort of capitalist economic system that is driving a lot of the crisis. And I think what we're seeing as well is that the solutions need to be perhaps radical and there's the sort of the Latin root of radical, which means you're looking at the cause of it, the roots of the issue and realizing the sort of systemic nature of it, rather than just the symptoms and thinking you can deal with each one of the symptoms. And I think it's dealing with those symptoms and isolation that often leads to maybe more false solutions, as we've kind of mentioned the term false solutions in some of these discussions. So I wanted to maybe dive into, in your experience from your work, what is a false solution, can you give us an example that illustrates it, and why is it not really a solution, why would it be considered false versus a meaningful solution and not a just one. Okay, I like that I was, I thought I had a long stretch to wait and gather my thoughts and then you are boom. Yes, that there are actually many examples and from my experience, also building up on what I just said. A lot of a lot of the work I do on food hunger politics about food issues, as well as on fossil politics, which means a structure structural fossil fuels, which is the beginning point more or less the beginning of the pipeline for pumping carbon into the water. And so, look at it, those two broad areas. I see examples of false vision that directly directly really blocks blocks real action. One is the whole concept of climate smart agriculture, maybe terrace would speak more Teresa will speak more about this, but maybe not. Okay, but, you know, my, my take on this, I'm not going to the technicalities of it. My take on this is that when people speak about climate smart, actually, rightly or wrongly, the idea is about genetically engineered crops, crops engineering laboratories to be water tolerant, a drought tolerant, or to be able to withstand some other harsh conditions. I mean, when, when this comes up, people are generally say, Oh, well, that's, that's a great idea. People believe that technology can solve all kinds of problems, but a lot of false solutions are based on on technology being turned into a fetish, a kind of religion. And, and really for a crop to be truly climate smart, it has to be, I believe it has to be culture smart. It has to be ecologically smart. It has to be in digital city territory, which is cultivated is not a thing you manufacture from the laboratory life is not a product of the laboratory of a confined building lab laboratory in the building is the laboratory of life. That's where life comes from. And so we need to see things that nature's already given us that are resilient and they promote those things because the sustainable action is when people live in a particular place, see how what they have can help them overcome the challenges of global warming. If they have to depend on important ideas or important items, there's no sustainability. And there's no, there's no, except it goes back to another colonial arrangement where people have to depend on on a cargo coming from the seaport. So the challenge I also see is that building on that notion that genetically engineered crops can are the best to to be climate resilient means that in Africa, for example, where countries are being twisted to develop very permitting safety laws that don't consider the safety of the environment, the safety of the people or just a notion that that somebody can can produce something that is that is that that that tackles the problem. And we see a lot of receipt resistance to actually carrying out the real climate action and the real climate action we all know is to keep the fossils in the ground. It doesn't require technology. It doesn't require equipment. It doesn't require having massive conferences for over 20 years, simple, keep the fossils in the ground. And we've seen examples of this being done. For example, in Ogonilan, fossils have been kept in the ground since 1993, when the people say we don't want any more extraction in our territory. We've seen efforts in Ecuador, although at Yasuni ITT that didn't work out eventually, but we've also seen it in places like Costa Rica, in Belize about offshore extraction. We've seen the fissures in Lofoten in Norway continuously fighting against extraction or even exploration, which is destructive. So, climate action again, to me, the fall solutions are things that ignore that ignore the beginning of the pipeline, things that that any solution that talks only about carbon molecules to me is completely false solution. And that's what we see in a lot of what we do. So Nino Mio rightly mentioned about the GMMO and also the climate smart. So climate smart is a very big term climate smart agriculture or climate smart solution. So we should focus on sustainability or like climate resilient infrastructure or the agriculture production. The other one is the policymaking or you know Bangladesh is the first country who take a action plan Bangladesh climate change country action plan. And we have many policies is called national representation plan and many policies for Bangladesh and also Bangladesh is a pioneer of delta plan. So people's participation, women's participation or young people's participation in the policy making policy execution climate intervention is very. So, without the community people's participation, the concert and late planning, it's sometime turn to fall solution, and then it's create more problem with this inaccurate solution like delta plan, delta plan totally focus on the Netherlands, and it's totally the Netherlands expert. So Netherlands is a delta country Bangladesh is another delta country. So if we copy that Netherlands plan. So we cannot fix out with sustainable solution. So in water management and also security. So everywhere we should promote the indigenous knowledge, local knowledge, local solution. So without local knowledge, local solution, local experience, we will create more problem with the false climate solution and Bangladesh established climate trust fund, but this trust fund is not funding in real cause or climate resilient infrastructure. They are funding in the as usual development project, they are funding on park, they are funding on bus stand, but it's not the solution, we need more support on the drinking water crisis in Bangladesh, or how farmers can adapt, but their funding is wrong way. So these are development project and Bangladesh taking many mega project, but they're doing some environmental assessment, but it's not perfectly. So through many development mega project is create more problem in the climate crisis area. I think I'll talk about one specific example right now about of the false solution. And that is the big flurry that we're seeing at the moment of net zero climate targets that are being announced by governments and corporations. I hope you will have heard government announcements like from the UK, you, Canada, France, New Zealand, Sweden, lots of them are announcing net zero climate targets, which people are assuming is a great sign and putting us on track for meeting the Paris Agreement commitments. And at the same time you're seeing all sorts of corporations Shell, BP, Nestle, Qantas, Microsoft, the cement industry, the dairy industry, even the steel industry announcing somehow that they plan to get to net zero emissions by 2050. This is being celebrated, particularly by the UK government as host of the upcoming COP26 as a great sign that we're on track to save the planet. It sounds great. And one might assume that the more announcements that we get, the better we are for the climate. But unfortunately, that is not the case because net zero targets might sound good, but actually they are mostly being used to delay urgent action often until 2050, which is still 30 years away. Greenwash, business as usual, and most of the time many of these targets actually rely on imaginary technologies that don't really even exist or that they're in very, very initial stage and will probably never ever work at scale. And a lot of the time these targets also assume that they would have to have massive tree plantations and I'm talking a massive that would drive vast land grabs in the global south. And so that means that when we see these net zero targets being announced, we have to scrutinize them before we accept them at face value. In particular, we have to watch out for the net part of the net zero targets. You know, is it really about getting down to zero? Or is it the net or the massive net that's the greenwash? How big is that net? Unfortunately, instead of really transforming and cutting emissions radically in the way that we know we need corporations and governments to do, most of these net zero targets really rely heavily on assuming that basically you can carry on polluting, releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that at some point in the future, there will be a solution to suck that carbon out the air again at some point. So most of these net zero targets tend to bet on a combination of carbon offsetting with tree plantations or assuming that negative emissions technologies like bioenergy with carbon capture and storage are going to do the bulk of sucking the carbon out the air after it's been emitted. But you know, these technologies like carbon capture and storage is ridiculous to rely on these for your target because it will likely never work at scale. Even though billions of dollars have been spent on this technology over decades, they still cannot make it work at scale. And if they rely on bioenergy from tree plantations to sort of try to suck even more carbon out the air to make that CCS even more effective, they'll drive massive land grabs in the global south. So by having these targets based on BEX, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, we're damned if it does work because it will drive land grabs and also damned if it doesn't work because that means we failed our climate targets. So it's really ridiculous to have these targets based on this imaginary technology and all this land. We do not want to legitimize climate colonialism through our climate strategies. There is just not enough land on the planet to meet all of the combined corporate and government offsetting targets. And so many of these targets are based on 2050 anyway, which is just far too little too late. And really this is about this huge net components of these targets that disguise they disguise a lack of transformative action to reduce greenhouse gases. And so like there are various estimates that suggest that if we don't radically transform to stop releasing greenhouse gases at source we could end up needing to plant trees on up to half the land that the world area currently uses to grow crops, or maybe even more So these are basically really weak targets being announced, most of them, and it means that we'll likely see widespread failure to cut emissions and achieve these targets and the action that's needed. And we'll also see that the vulnerable communities in the global south who've done the least to cause the climate problem and who already faced the worst impacts are going to be pushed off their land. And just as we saw with the biofuel land grab over the last decade or more, but potentially orders of magnitude even bigger so we'll see you know displacement hunger loss of livelihoods deforestation gendered impacts and huge injustice. Once again the global south carrying the burden to fix a problem that they didn't cause. And if we want to protect land for food security for ecosystems. We basically need to see real action to cut emissions real radical as you said Alex profound transformation, particularly in sectors like energy industry agriculture and for climate targets to be based on real radical urgent transformation. Thank you for those really hard answers. And it seems a lot of the heart of them is problematic reliance on technology that's not sensitive to justice speaking of problematic technology so sorry we lost you for a little while there but glad you're back with us. And it does seem like this this focus on technology will save us has become a really prominent element in this. I think the poster boy for that is Bill Gates and his new book. And he talks about like all these far from technology that you know will save us we need to invest in R&D and so on. Meanwhile, he ignores a lot of the solutions that we have right now. Could you maybe give examples from from your experience of what a real solution looks like and why justice is key to it. And I think here I'll just allow anybody to to jump in. So feel free if anybody's feeling sort of the urge and has a good sense of what they'd like to talk about in terms of what is a real solution and why it's just as key to it. I can jump in the memo Solano you're back but if you want a few minutes in a motocall, I'll go first. Yeah, about just to comment on Bill Gates know he's in favor of geoengineering which would be trying to you know mad mad technologies to to try to bounce sunlight off the off the edge of the atmosphere and potentially radically transform planetary weather systems like seriously billionaires will do anything to avoid system change. But, but to talk about real solutions for justice what a just recovery would or just solution would look like. I mean, let's think about what we want to bring to bring about what the targets need to look like what the plans need to look like to contrast with weak net zero targets what would action need to look like to take emissions down to real zero to have a chance of meeting the Paris agreement goal of limiting warming to 1.5 we would need to, you know, basically minimize the total amount of carbon dioxide we put into the atmosphere. Now, urgently, we need to stop polluting now and make the radical transformation now we need to restructure our energy agriculture housing transport construction industrial economic systems. It's going to be huge the transformation we need to create and we need to create that pressure and demand together because otherwise it's not going to happen. In order to bring global emissions down to as close to zero as possible, and then simply use our remaining precious but limited biodiversity ecosystems to absorb whatever emissions that we can't figure out how to stop. And we need, you know, government and corporate targets to not be about 2050 they need to be about 2025 and 2030 ambitious targets in the near term that do not rely on offsets or dangerous negative emission technologies. And to do all of this in a way that's just for communities we should apply principles of just transition and I'll explain a little bit what this can look like in food systems because we did a briefing. A while back called principles for just transition in agriculture, but I think it can apply broadly to other sectors too. So when it comes to agriculture the IPCC made it clear that you know we need to shift from industrialized agribusiness to agroecological or organic models of agriculture and from factory farming of livestock to producing and consuming less and better meat. And that's because nitrogen synthetic nitrogen fertilizers from produced by agribusiness require a lot of emissions to produce and when they added to the soil they kill the lovely, lovely soil biota, and they also cause the carbon in the soil to degrade back into carbon dioxide. Whereas when you use agroecology or organic agriculture you're using natural materials like compost and manure to add to the soil increase fertility and carbon in the soil and store the carbon and and also make crops more resilient because the water can also store better which makes it more resilient to to droughts and floods. And when it comes to factory farming livestock that's a huge problem because it causes so much of the world's cropland and forest land just to produce feed for these animals and as well as for grazing. And instead we need to produce and consume less and better meat and and also grow more vegetable proteins and pulses. So we would find it easier to feed the world using our land, our world's cropland, if we were growing food for humans instead of for livestock in factory farms. But we need to recognize that as we talk about just transition in the energy sector we also farming communities also need just transitions to better modes of farming or even alternative economic opportunities. There is a lot of resistance to climate action among farming communities and that's because farming is already a very difficult way of life. Farmers are squeezed they're often forced to get big or get out often by the industrial model of agriculture. And they can be worried that like top down simplistic climate policies are just going to add extra burdens to livelihoods that already very precarious. So they may feel demonized they can often feel quite defensive. So that's why we developed these principles for just transition in agriculture and the key takeaway is that it's not only about what you transition to but how that transition is done it's about the process as well as the outcome. So it's about creating the space for farming communities or communities such as those in the energy sector to participate in shaping the transformation so that it works for them as well as for nature and the climate and that it addresses the underlying inequalities in the system. So just transition has to address inequality and not exacerbate it and the communities themselves get the support they need to make that leap whether it's training or social protection or or new routes to market new in new livelihood economic models set up rather than just being told yep we're we're we're basically expecting you Mr or Mrs farmer to make the change and solve the problem without giving you any support. But if done well just transition can help communities shift from opposing climate action to being advocates because it creates the space for them to shape a more secure and more just future. I would just like to start by saying that the just transition or just recovery we're talking about cannot be. Well it would not be just if we're moving from one destructive system to another. We love so much I mean we love clean energy green from renewable energy. But if the destruction of materials or construct that new technology is destructive to mother at destroying environments and their sources of livelihood then of course there's something wrong that can be unjust renewable energy. But the caution is just that we need to be careful about what we are we were moving and how we're moving is just a natural precaution or cautionary comment because we've seen in some places where very much needed green energy provision is done at the detriment of local communities whose lands are grabbed and who are also at the fringes of the energy supply and don't benefit from it whatsoever. But I would say that I believe one of the key changes that we need to see both at the multilateral level is an immediate end to voluntary emissions reductions. Nations should not be left to to just cut emissions I say please because even even though the efforts to make them more ambitious and so on this natural that geopolitical arrangements and the political equations in the world. The fact that might is still quite powerful in relation between nations the polluters would continue to avoid cutting emissions at source or at best they would do what what Teresa talked about now what we're about net net zero suggestions even the most polluting companies are now declaring that in by 2050 there will be net zero and so on and what does this mean doesn't mean they're going to they're not going to stop emitting they're going to stop polluting they're going to have an imaginary imaginary solution that supposedly absorbs the equivalent of the carbon they are producing as though nature works on the basis of arithmetic or calculus but nature is much more complicated than that. So, um, I believe the this kind of just solution want to see must be devoid of carbon offsetting in that summary of we shouldn't see trees as carbon stocks trees are much more useful ecosystems than just carbon stocks otherwise might as well use humans we have a lot of carbon in our body so might as well use human populations as carbon sinks. I don't know why shouldn't the argument must be must be reasonable. If you want to use trees as carbon sinks extend to other things, including human beings as carbon sinks and that would actually be stupid. We also see the issue of oceans being in terms of geoengineering, trying people planning that they could enhance carbon absorption by ocean by true carbon, true ocean fertilization, or true other other means. But what that could that could very much even increase the problems with the ocean which will including ocean increasing acidification, which would impact on the aquatic ecosystem and really create more problems for both humans and other beings, both in the ocean and outside of the ocean. Of course that could also be massive seagrabs. There's a lot of talk about the blue economy at the moment ocean economy has been the new black gold or whatever they give you some some nice name that makes you learn to sleep, whereas it's actually a signal that look colonization is coming from another level. We've got a lot of land grabbing nice going to be see grabbing and of course geoengineering, although the terrestrial. I mean, the, the ones about solar radiation management by putting solar, putting partners in the atmosphere mirrors in the atmosphere, and so on and so forth, also can be said to constitute sky grabs. And we have to just fight against all this grabbing the real job solution would be would be may not be very convenient for for us, but we have to. We have to be ready to accommodate ourselves caught our consumption as use more manufacture more durable groups you don't need new models of everything every year. And then there were others are going obsolete and we're looking for way to dump, dump the waste. Some of these ways are not easy to manage and so the plastics being dumped in the ocean some being used in even domestic domestic products may last several lifetimes before the if they ever bow the grade or ever the great work at all. And so we're moving into we have to move in a way that protects not just the environment at this moment, but also what future generations will have to deal with. And so that simple solution I believe simple solutions to the complex climate problem, but guess when the solutions are so simple, people are going to take note of them. For example, we always said agriculture is one of the most polluting sectors. We don't ask the person what kind of agriculture is also a fossil for different agriculture mechanical is about colonial plantation agriculture that is feeding other mesh feeding machines or feeding animals and not really the food that is produced mostly by small scale farmers. So we do know that farming close to nature actually cools the planet cools the planet. So let's call out the climate criminals and not not blame make a blanket blame on on sectors or people who are engaging in real climate action. I believe what we need to do what needs to be done is actually for humans to be a bit more humble and listen to nature. To accept that we can't we don't understand the entire complex complex situation in which we found ourselves and then begin to look at how to review things and how to repair what is broken how to how to replace the system and then get back to caring for one another, caring for other beings, caring for ecosystems and knowing that we have ecosystem both outside our bodies and within our bodies. In other words, again I repeat we need to listen to nature is the mother respect the right of nature to be herself. And then of course in all this. There are some things that we may not be able to avoid, but of course you have to make sure that they're within sustainable limit, and in all that label will not be sacrificed on the altar of profit. Thank you everybody for these incredible discussions. I think it's really shown how justice truly is at their heart of solving our climate crisis and our broader planetary emergency indeed. I thought I would end with a quote from Dr corner West, who says that I never forget that justice is what love looks like in public. And I think thinking about what it means to fight for justice and climate justice. We recognize that it's informed by love of our community love of our planets of our ecosystems. And that it's that love that ignites us and makes us fight for real solutions not false solutions ones that truly will solve the crisis and look at the core of what drives in the roots of these issues. And so I hope those that have joined us for this session have got to see what justice means a little bit more. And it's something that we need to dive deeper into in our work all the time and never forget to look at where justice comes in and why we need to fight so hard to ensure that it is there in our climate action. So thank you everybody for joining us and many, many thanks to our wonderful panelists for this really rich and lively discussion around justice. Thank you very much. Global just recovery gathering.