 There's very little sort of global level frameworks or guidances that's clearly given to the corporates. And that's why we're sort of in that transition period where we need to bring that consensus and that sort of understanding how to account for how to report. Until then, I feel like you can just say it. And consumers will not know. And I work in this field. But if I talk to my grandmother, if she's booking an airline ticket and the airlines is where carbon neutral, she's gonna believe it. So I think it's an effort by all parties. So corporates need to follow the net zero target and how to get there, sort of that structure. And consumers also need to be educated. How to differentiate greenwashing versus non. Margaret Kim is my guest on this episode of Inside Ideas brought to you by 1.5 media and innovators magazine. Margaret or Maggie is the CEO of the gold standard foundation whose standard gold standard for the global goals allows climate and development interventions to quantify, certify and maximize impacts towards the Paris climate agreement and the sustainable development goals. Maggie was previously the head of green climate fund liaison in the Office of Director General for the Global Green Growth Institute GGGI, where she also served as head of strategy and integration. Maggie has also held leadership roles in the private sector, including as general manager, sales, strategy and business development for a leading biotechnology company. Her strengths and strategy, strategic development and resource mobilization coupled with a passion for sustainable development and combating climate change supports gold standard in delivering on their vision for climate security and sustainable development for all. Maggie, welcome to the show. It's so good to have you. Thank you, Mark, for having me. You're most welcome. I'm so excited that you're here. We're going to have a lot to talk about and we're going to almost go fast and furious because we've got really deep subjects and topics that we want to cover. And we want to take everybody, all the listeners on a journey kind of get them up to speed on what's going on, how it's developed over the years that not only the gold standard has been around, but this whole carbon credits, carbon offsetting, how do we understand that, you know, dispel some myths? I've been fortunate and lucky enough to have past CEOs of the gold standard on the show. So a matter of fact, a podcast with Marianne Verlus and also know Adrian Rimmer. So clear back in 2010 and before who also served as CEO. So you're in good company. I'm in good company speaking to you. And maybe I guess the first way is how does that work for a gold standard coming in as CEO and there's past CEOs? Is this, do you have other core work or things that you do at the same time? Or is it, how does that position work? So of course, I'm continuing the wonderful legacy the previous CEO set out for for me and for the gold standard. And I came into this role at a very critical time, not only because of the global sort of movement of combating climate change and advocating for a sustainable future, but really a gold standard itself was going through a change. We decided to practice the best governance, best practice governance by separating the standard setting, the methodology development in one hand that's led by the foundation as a nonprofit. And then the certification and verification body now is led by Marianne, the predecessor of gold standard in my position, leading the company's sustained search. So we're creating that independence between standard setting and a certification decision, which which qualifies us as an ICL member, which is a is a global international sustainable, the sustainability standards group. And to show the market that that there's transparency, there's that independence in the offsets that that individuals and corporates are purchasing. So so I'm excited to join in that really great momentum. And of course, it's a critical years that we're we're in. And we are facing to address climate change to make sure we raise ambition. So it's a lot of strategic strategy development and making sure we engage stakeholders to bring consensus to scale the market to to scale the the verification and certification using technology. So it's it's really exciting to be continuing that great legacy. That's beautiful. Thanks. Thanks for that explanation. So we we want to kind of take everyone on a journey of making sense of of what's out there and how you're developing and moving forward. We've just experienced and still are experiencing the most crazy times, not just plant pandemic black lives matters, issues, tons of issues with race, especially in the Asian population now in the United States with some horrific things going on that are tied kind of or I don't know even where the thought goes tied to China and Asian people in general, that has to do with the pandemic, which was just craziness going on black lives matters. Then we had the inauguration craziness we've got Brexit, we've got all these things going on around the world. You guys have all been talking about this, you've been involved in the Paris agreement and the sustainable development goals in thinking around sustainability, environmental, social governance, how as an organization, but also if you can maybe give us some insights, Maggie, on on what you've personally experienced and learning lessons, how have you weathered all this craziness and what things have changed, what things have you learned or is there some kind of a resilient or model out there that just really works a lot better for humanity? Wow, that's an overwhelming question on its own. I think to me, I started to reflect on this after, you know, I never thought this pandemic would last for this long. And in the last 12 months or so, we've seen, I mean, nowadays news don't really surprise me. In a sense, I feel like there there has been so many critical, crazy news out there that affected everybody's life in the last couple of years and last couple of months. And to me, the global pandemic, the Black Lives Matter movement, recent hate crimes against Asians and the elections, all of that really further unravel the complexity of systems and its associated risks around climate change. And I personally believe climate change is the biggest threat and risk that human race has ever faced. And there are numerous levels of interdependency, interconnectedness and nonlinear interactions in all of this, the systems that we live in and the society that we live in. And that really got me thinking, how do we, how do we create that new norm? And I was bit depressed in the beginning of the pandemic, because a lot of the international efforts to reach agreement on Paris Agreement rulebook and efforts to climate change seem to be stalled a little bit. But what really brought back my hope was that actually in the last 12 months, we've seen major governments emerging economies really committing to ambitious targets by 2050. We've seen major businesses ramping up their climate ambition, committing to net zero target by 2050. And that gives me hope that now people are finally seeing climate change is not something that environmentalist or advocacy groups are shouting out for. But it's really central to the economic recovery. So we've seen a lot of governments introducing green stimulus packages. How green it is as a separate question. So to me, at the end of this journey, I still see hope and light at the end of the tunnel, that it's actually creating a momentum, a global movement that's really bringing climate change and sustainable, the need for sustainable development to the central, to the center of decision making and governance going forward. So from gold standard, we were fortunate. None of us were terribly affected by the pandemic. Of course, emotionally, I think personally, everybody was affected. But but work wise. Yes, there are challenges because all of our projects are on site and require specific, you know, local stakeholder consultation in person visits and site visits. And those had to be delayed. So there are some sort of elements that are challenged due to lack of travel, lack of, you know, because of the social distancing reasons. But overall, we're seeing huge increase in interest for carbon offsets and climate protection projects. So project developers are the activities are increasing project developers are busy addressing the increased demand signals from the market and corporates. We've seen corporates commit to very ambitious targets, which then inevitably forces them to really plan on how to get there. So I think from gold standards perspective, this pandemic and series of global issues have really surfaced the issue and made us to face that challenge. But it is true that that we are living in a challenging time. And global pandemic like COVID-19, it really, the most vulnerable communities are the most affected ones due to climate change. So and therefore, I think it's ever more important for corporates, governments, individuals, organizations, and communities to take that responsibility on climate action. That's not only high environmental integrity and maximize the sustainable development potential, but also put an equal importance on climate justice and societal values. So so all in all, I still want to keep my hopes high. It has affected all of us, including myself. But but I think it gives us a good opportunity to really revisit the values that we live on. And the fact that we can't compromise climate change or the sustainable development issues for the economic recovery. And I strongly believe that these can go hand in hand. So for me, I speak a lot about environmental, social governance, sustainable development goals, a lot of around environment, human health, things like this. And I've been speaking at large corporations, clear down to individuals and bottom up, pop down any anyone who would who would listen. And a lot of people were kind of saying, oh, we're good, we'll wait, or it's highly expensive, or it's difficult. And I switched back in 2015, really firm and hard saying any event that I travel to must be carbon offset that there's there has to be just taken into account. It has to be an event that's thinking in this direction. And whether that event did it or not, that I was going to do it if I was going to attend. And therefore, that there need to be some kind of a balancing out. And when I attended that event, kind of with that in mind, I when the pandemic hit my phone, my email blew up. I mean, people were like, we didn't listen to you. How can you help us? How can we get back to business? I know you guys deal on a much higher level as the standard level. One, I'd like you to kind of explain just for those of us who have no clue what the gold standard does and is that but also who is it for? Is it for corporations, cities, countries? Is it for individuals? And in the in this crazy time, we've seen more influx of where you say we need to raise the bar a little bit higher on standards or we've had more people approaching us. Just kind of give us that journey on what it is and then what you've seen during this pandemic time. So before I get into sort of a brief introduction of gold standard, what we believe in in terms of principle is reduced within and finance beyond. And I'm going to unpack that a little bit. I think all members of the global community has a role to play in addressing climate change. So whether that's a government so governments has to reduce within their national boundaries. They set their nationally determined contribution targets according to the Paris Agreement. Corporates need to need to reduce within their corporate boundaries and finance beyond to achieve their net zero target. Individuals, we as as global citizens, we need to reduce carbon footprint within our daily lives and and be able to finance beyond. And and oftentimes we all talk about urgency that that it had to be addressed yesterday. But urgency often leads to hasty decisions and actions. And urgency often leads to greenwashing. So so we need to make sure that we do it in the right way and and how that's where gold standard comes in. So gold standard is a is an NGO based in Switzerland. We were we were established in 2003. And since then the the mission of this organization is to ensure that climate security and sustainable development is for all. And in order to do that, how can a standard and and verification and certification enable transparency credibility in articulating that impact? Because it's so easy to easy to say I had a great impact on this project or I had a great impact on this by doing this. But how can you quantify that? How can you measure that? How can you report that? So for governments, there's clear measurement reporting verification requirements. Corporates also need to start putting that in place. Individuals, it's it's I do it all the time. We should be able to measure our carbon footprint and reduce as much as we can. So the gold standard's role is to really provide tools and guidances and methodologies for these groups. So government, corporates and individuals to be able to use our methodology and offset through our scheme so that they can be reassured that they're not only guaranteed with that offset of carbon reduction, but also that you're creating additional impact. So additional sustainable development benefits. So to date gold standard has about 1800 climate protection projects all over the world in more than 70 countries. We contributed to certifying 150 million tons of CO2 leading to 23 billion dollars of shared value created. When I say shared value, that refers to the sustainable development impact. So so in that way, we're trying to make sure that not only we help these these stakeholder groups to raise the ambition, but also make sure that you get there. You get to that goal in a transparent and in a in a credible way. So I always say you've got to reduce within and finance beyond whether your government, corporate, an organization or a city or an individual. That's beautiful. Really, I guess you're what I hear out of it is that you're trying to make the best use of every dollar, Euro pound channel towards climate change. Although you are a foundation and kind of have ambitious goals, there are some that you don't have unlimited resources and funds. And you're also relying on many different actors to to come in and to maximize this impact so that you really, you know, you want to maximize what you do in terms of mitigation, but also towards development outcomes, vulnerabilities towards communities and ecosystem. So I love I love hearing that. Does does that mean that you you kind of have not implemented new learnings or set the bar higher? Or I mean, you did mention, you know, you don't want to do any greenwashing. You don't want to sell hasty or or decisions. But maybe if you haven't done that, where there more people contacting gold standard or more of those organizations, not just sustainable, but others that kind of work in conjunction with you as well that are coming in and saying, boy, you know, we've got to tweak this. We've got to fine tune our carbon calculators, our footprint calculators. We've got to raise the bar. We see that there's some holes in this area or or that there was just more uptake. I mean, the crazy thing in during this pandemic is there's an economic downturn or crisis in many respects. But food, essential services and sustainability. Yes, gee, outperformed conventional counterparts. And so that when you talk about financials and investments and how your impact measures, those all basically explode and they're almost still on an exponential path, a critical mass of growth and movement. People like the US with the new administration doubling down, making some real strong commitments and efforts to to do things in better ways. And so I'd like to hear, you know, did you have any learning lessons? Did you have any good stories or things that you saw? Wow. You know, in a time where we should all be maybe burying our head in the sand or be totally afraid. Those were the times where we we pivoted on a dime and have have made some stronger commitments or even realize what what was going on. You know, that's that's an interesting question because I've had quite a few wow moments in the last 12 months. And and I've been in this field for quite a few years. And and this whole concept of of greener growth or sustainable development always seem to be sort of a UN thing or an NGO thing. And corporates love to use it as a green stamp for their investors or shareholders. In the last 12 months, I've had my while moments when large corporations actually reached out to us or through their initiatives or through their foundations being very serious about setting the science based target, for example, and and really trying to understand how they get there. And it's to me, I always thought I had a suspicion. But it's it's more and more clear to me that corporates are becoming serious about this. And the consumers are smarter. And they are being asked by investors. So I think it's a it's a it's a systems approach where everybody's actually questioning. And it's now coming to a point where corporates and certain sectors also have to respond to this, that in five, five years ago, maybe they didn't have to or they just brushed it off. So so for corporates, for example, it's clear because we at gold standard, we always advocate for the four steps for a corporate to to achieve their their net zero target. One, they have to measure and disclose carbon emissions. So their carbon accounting has to be robust and have a plan on how to get there. So reduce climate impact in line with your science based target. And and and and make sure that your finance emissions reductions to compensate for residual emission beyond by investing in climate action beyond your boundaries. And finally, most importantly, advocate for that strong policy change. So and it's it's obvious to me nowadays that corporates are actually coming to us to think about what's the short term, medium term strategy, because you can easily say, you know, as as an employee working for a large corporation, you can say, OK, this is something that I don't have to worry about because I'll be retired by then when that Judgment Day comes. But but people are serious. They want to really build a division that really works on this and really understand what are high impact projects that they can invest in, how they can bring their value chain supply chain, how can they help their their supplier farmers? So it's it's a really integrated approach and a serious manner. So so I've had some wild moments with some of the corporates that we've been working together and also governments and surprisingly, it's not just the developed countries in Europe where where I'm sitting in, but really some of the developing countries on the other side of the world is coming to us. Government of Mongolia said we want to we really want to have a robust MRV system integrated MRV system that can measure, verify and report against our progress. I mean, these are the wild moments where, you know, I feel great about my job and and and seeing that change, seeing that movement firsthand. So so I guess the the lesson learned is, you know, at the momentum is here and we got to build on it and make it work in a right way. There there's a couple of things within that as well. What I've seen and I want to want to maybe you have a story or maybe you've seen this as well. Those organizations, corporates that maybe before the pandemic, maybe even far back as two thousand and fifteen or even two thousand and nineteen had already started moving and offsetting and strong ESG because you mentioned those four four pillars that in order to do it, you have to kind of address those. And and what let's be honest, what that means is really a shift in your business model, how you report, how how you measure, how you do those things and then also how you speak about it. So now those those who have done that be, you know, let's even say two thousand and nineteen. What I've seen is they're they're coming now during and as we hopefully emerge and move out of out of this craziness and to the next craziness that they're saying, wow, that was a better business model. We're so glad we did that because this this and this we had resilience during this crazy time. We had social distancing. We had certain measures in place as we do business that really helped us during this time. It wasn't a strain. It says, oh, we regret doing that because we could have used that money or that effort for something else. We've seen total difference, at least I have, but I imagine you have as well. Is there anything in that respect that you've seen or can you just concur that that you've seen seen that as well? I I think I'm pretty ambitious with the bar that I set for these large corporations. So I think there's still huge room for improvement, but I do give credit to some of these these corporates that already started years back. So some of our corporates in the food, beverage sector or agriculture sector have been involved with us since three, five years ago. And there's still challenges because, for example, value chain or or we call it scope three, a mission is still one of the most challenging element for corporates to reach net zero because the value chain, the supply chain scope three emissions are often the largest source of corporate carbon footprint. And yet to date, there's there's very little guidance or global recognition or or tools that allow them to account for this and and basically reduce it. So so there's a lot of sort of stakeholder groups that get together and we provide that with sustained sort of platform where they can come in and share their challenges and develop guidance or a tool together to to think about, you know, there's uncertainty about who's responsible for these indirect emissions. You know, there's limited access to supplier data. What about, you know, the shared farming lack of guidance? So all these challenges are still there. And if we don't address these and if we don't create a consensus around that, what we're going to see and what corporates are going to claim will not be credible. So so to me, if if I mean, I, you know, some some media release was there on, you know, some companies claiming that zero by today, like it's not possible. So so how do we how do we move towards that in a phased approach? And how do we bring different stakeholders into this? So we bring consensus because a corporate can hire a few brilliant people and just pretend that this is it and claim that we're net zero by 2050. But but who's going to verify that? What are the the steps to do that? So so to me, I'm not I don't want to be I'm cautiously optimistic that some companies are actually seeing the change of business model profiting them. I probably don't have like a concrete example to share, but I've heard from our colleagues in those corporates, in the sustainability divisions that they're really integrating the CSR, the Sustainability Division decisions into the corporate decision making, which I think is a huge step forward. But in terms of the profit profitability of the company, I think we're going to need few more years to really see the evidence. And once that evidence is triggered and shared publicly communicated, I think that's when when all the companies, the rest of the corporate sector, who hasn't really bought into the idea, will join in. So so I'm very thankful to be working with some of the pioneering corporates right now, especially in Europe, to tackle some of these challenges. There there was so that brings up a bunch of areas we could dive a little bit deeper in. I kind of maybe will just tickle the surface and go in and a few. So in some respects, I'm hearing your position on on the term or climate neutral claims that companies use today. There are several of them. The best example probably is Delta Airlines and Valentine's Day twenty twenty before the pandemic. It says we're going to march first. We're going to be part of a neutral climate neutral. What can you tell us a little bit more about your position or is that is that a touchy subject? Is that something we shouldn't be doing yet or is there or do you think no, they're in there. They're moving in the right direction or can you give us a little more understanding on when companies say that what it means, how we should look at it, what the reality is. I think we need to sort of move away from carbon neutral statement. And and to me, it's very clear that that for corporates, for large corporates, there's a clear body, clear global body that sets the target. So so there's the science based targets initiative group comprised of a number of respected NGOs, including WWF, WRI and the states and UN compact and CDP and others. And and basically corporates have to submit their targets. And that's first to align with science. And and then you basically have to follow the four steps I shared earlier to reach that target. And and it is true. There's very little sort of global level frameworks or guidances that's that's clearly given to the corporates. And that's why we're sort of in that transition period where we need to bring that consensus and that that's sort of understanding how to account for how to report. Until then, I feel like you can just you can just say it. And consumers will not know. And I work in this field. But if I talk to my grandmother, if if she's booking an airline ticket and the airlines is where carbon neutral, she's going to believe it. So so I think it's an effort by all parties. So corporates need to follow the net zero target and how to get their sort of that that structure. And and consumers also need to be educated how to differentiate greenwashing versus non. So so I think and also globally, there has to be a framework that supports these corporates to make sure that these informations are these information is clearly transparently disclosed and consumers have access to that. So I think it's an effort from all parts and NGOs and CSOs need to be watching how these corporates actually move on their commitment. So so to me, I think it's and it's hard because this industry has so many jargons and it seems like every five to ten years, the the next trend changes how we call the same concept changes. And and that really bothers me. It's simple. We got to reach net zero by 2050. And according to Paris Agreement, we need to balance the the carbon emission with carbon six, five mid century. I mean, it's simple. Well, how do we get there is a question we need to all answer. So so to me, there's no point of using these different jargons to to package it. And and I really. Hope that global community or the bodies that govern this or bodies that lead this, this sort of streamlines, terminologies, concepts and definitions so that consumers and the layman people who who every day go through without thinking about climate change every day. Are clear on what they're getting. There I think there are so many. I mean, we could really go deep because one, there's the greenwashing, but the other one is, you know, airlines saying we're carbon neutral and things, but they're in some respects also putting the onus back on to the the the passenger, the consumer to book a carbon neutral flight or to do offsetting through through their booking process where it would almost be better that that that was already included in the package from the beginning that they said, no, we'll take care of that. And that's just somehow included in the price and in the total experience that that they're doing that for you. There's this other thing around greenwashing and I don't know what you're. We've touched upon it a couple of times and this kind of leads me into the the spelling, the myth of offsetting, but we'll touch on that in a moment. And it's really I have this feeling and I've seen it over time. Greenwashing to me is fake it until you make it. A lot of organizations are like totally bullshitting. There's greenwashing like crazy. And then they're like, we're getting such positive response. We're, you know, I, you know, I think the dialogue is a little bit different. But even if they are greenwashing and it's total BS, there's this thing that comes forward as, wow, our consumers, our contractors, our partners are, we're getting such good resonance and we really didn't mean it that eventually after a year or two or more, they're like, there's something to this. This this could be a better model. The biggest way that I deal with it is and you've probably seen this as well as that. A lot of organizations and institutes will come to me and ask for help on reporting. They'll they'll do it at the end of their reporting year when they're, you know, after the year is done and that's OK, we've got to see what SDGs we can fit in to this year's worth of reporting. What actions do we take during this year that we can fit into our report and say, oh, this is what we did? Well, that doesn't work. That that that's not reality. That's, you know, it's the beginning of the year you you set actions and targets and and you have these fun things based on actions. And then you can report on all the positive successes at the end of the year, as well as what you didn't achieve and didn't happen. But it's a much better narrative. It's a much better journey and story, more rallying of your consumers and everybody where you're saying, hey, we just went on that. We had we had these actions that we set out for the beginning year. We reached them all. We blew by them. It's a better model. It was fun. Our employers, our consumers, our partners, they were all so excited and let let us report on how we achieved and reach these goals or shot beyond them. Whereas some people say, OK, what SDGs can we fit there? What did we do for sustainability and that can we can squeeze into reporting? Why even do it? It's wasted time. You haven't done nothing. You're just business as usual. You're just reporting how you're continuing slower in the wrong direction. And so with that, I mean, that's what I've seen. If you fake it to make it unless you just you just don't care and nobody can see behind the the the the curtains, you're just BSing yourself. But a lot of people are saying, wow, this really does work. Maybe we should look into really changing our model. I think they get till you make it might have worked 10 years ago. In a sense, you know, you had time to fake it. But do we have that time? And I really don't think we have that time. So to me now, it's not about faking. Either you get serious or you don't care about it. And I don't think we can change all minds of major corporate CEOs. There will be peer pressure if if within an industry, if one leader starts to change their business model and get serious about it, it's inevitable that that will have a ripple effect on its competitors. So to me, we don't have time to fake it. And and it really drives me crazy when I think about SDG washing. It's beyond belief. I mean, people just put that beautiful, you know, the rainbow color on top of whatever. And they say, we're creating impact. Says who? And that's where and then I completely agree with you, Mark, on the point that people retrofit it in towards the end. And it shouldn't be. And I think when you think of you and SDGs, people often think this is a UN thing. Or if I go to developing countries, people often say, oh, this is a foreign ministry led initiative, but it shouldn't be. It's a it's a planning tool. It should be integrated into everything you do as a government, as a corporate, as a as an individual. And maybe it's a marketing issue. This is not on its own goal. I think it's it's basically how do we integrate all SDGs into everyday life of every group that's existing on this earth? I think it's simple as that. So how do we empower women? How do we how do we preserve our biodiversity? How do we improve our energy efficiency? I mean, these things shouldn't be a separate topic. It should be really embedded into corporate decision making, everyday individual decision making, government decision making. And it really kills me to think that people are just using as a stamp at the end of the the report just to show that they tried, you know, and and that just can't happen. So so for me, that's where sort of go standards SDG tools come in handy as as a project developer, as a government. You can use these tools in the very outset of a planning to see how you want to monitor what's your what's your target impact, how you progress towards that and actually verify it and say, we did create X number of jobs. We empowered X number of women. We increase the the the graduation rate of girls in school and and we improve the air quality, improve the livelihoods of people. So so it's not about let's retrofit in some nice societal values at the end of a project, but really starting from the outset. And that's what makes school standard projects very unique because you have to do that from the very design phase. And I think corporates also need to do the same in governments as well and individuals. This kind of leads me into dispelling the math. I want you to dispel the math of so many conversations over the years about offsetting. I was one of the first trained by Al Gore as a climate mentor leader in that. And and he's done offsetting for for years. And that's kind of the initial place where the discussions have got into. But it's everywhere from corporate to government. It's the cities have had this. That that almost offsetting is an excuse of nonaction in action. So so to say, well, what are your thoughts? And can you dispel that myth for us? So before joining gold standard, I have to say I also had doubts of the offsetting market. And and I still believe that there are rooms for improvement for the offsetting market. And and I often say, you know, some critics come to me and say it's a way for guilty to pay for absolution rather than than changing their behavior. And I can completely disagree because there are our corporates who are taking this path. And and it's and that's why it's very critical for standards like gold standard, who's operating in this in this market without a regulatory framework. It's important that standards like us make sure we stand for the highest environmental integrity and maximize sustainable impact of the projects that we review and certify. And and and that gives the the buyers of these offset carbon assets, the confidence that they're not only guaranteed of one to one. So one credit means one ton of CO2 reduced somewhere that guarantee plus the potential that the sustainable development impact they're having through purchasing this credit. So so with that, I think offsetting another myth is there's a huge hype about offsetting right now. You know, Mark Carney Task Force was launched and there's an ambition to scale, you know, 10, 15 folds. I have to say, even if it's scaled. Carbon market, the carbon finance is dropping the bucket. If you think about the trillions of dollars that needs to be mobilized to achieve the Paris Agreement, to achieve the sustainable development goals. So offsetting, I feel like it's used by a lot of people as a as a as a tool to sort of bring up this hype. But if you really look at it from a macro perspective, it's just drop in the bucket. But it is an important drop because I think it is it is a very catalytic financing mechanism. So it leverages private finance. It goes to the marginalized communities otherwise wouldn't have access carbon finance or finance. So to me, offsetting should not be seen as a standalone measure but really be looked at from a holistic approach. And and and offsetting shouldn't be an instead of tool. So every stakeholder group, whether that's government who's offsetting corporate, that's offsetting or individual like you and me, offsetting, we should try as much as we can to reduce within and use the offsetting to finance beyond. So so I do agree with you that there are some areas this market has to improve. But but I still strongly believe that it's a strong catalytic mechanism to to support the people who are reducing within and trying to finance beyond. And another element that has to be tackled is transparency. You know, some some journalist or someone told me once it's like a black hole. And and it is true. The pricing is completely under the table. We don't have that visibility. It's a structured market. It's run by the market players. So even as a standard, we don't have clear view on all the pricing of our credits being traded in the market at different levels. So so I think transparency is another area. The market players as a whole needs to improve. We have registry that's publicly available for people to access. And also we need to find ways to bring that transparency out through the Mark Carney's Task Force working groups. So so yeah, they're missed. But but I think being part of gold standard, leading gold standard, I'm very excited to really improve that, strengthen the market mechanism going forward to align with science. I love that. So I mean, we we could keep getting into, I guess, some not black holes, but some rabbit holes of different topics because we just we can tell this is definitely an onion with with many layers that we could go into there. I kind of in this point, I think it's it's good and we'll go back to grow to zero in a minute. But I think we should take this in a direction for a minute. I want to know what gold standard stake is in technical solutions such as carbon capture and storage and could it be beneficial for projects and solutions of gold standard would also establish some new kind of certification to open new markets? The reason I ask that is for a couple reasons. So the the world's biggest business opportunities are also the world's biggest problems. You know, so the human suffering and our global grand challenges. It's not a way to make money off of human suffering and that, but it's also an opportunity that many people can see the bigger picture and a lot of large organizations are really jumping in and offering planetary services, environmental services in addition to their to their business, you know, what no matter what they do, they have some kind of a section that they want to this thought process leave the planet better than they found it. It's not just the bare minimum of offsetting or and this is where we'll talk about grow to zero in a minute, but it's also one great ambition happened in 2020 before the pandemic was also it was in January, I believe, for Microsoft. They made these huge ambitions. But one of the ambitions says that they're going to remove their historical carbon emissions since they've been in business, right? And I believe it was by 2050 that they'll remove all their historical carbon emissions. I mean, most people, what's that about that? How do I understand that? Since they've been in business, every product they've produced, every emission that they've had since that time, they're going to remove it. And that's this kind of step in the right direction. This is leaving the planet better than they found it, or at least getting to that balance so that now what we're seeing is direct air capture, carbon capture. We're seeing storage things come about, but we're seeing more organizations offer these planetary services to almost go beyond and say, OK, how can if I'm going to start a business or if I'm going to be in business, I need to make sure that the only impact I have on the planet is is net positive. That's a really positive impact. There's a new book coming out in September from Andrew Winston and Paul Pullman from former CEO of Unilever. It's called Net Positive, and it's kind of moving more in this direction that why do the bare minimum? Why just do carbon offsetting do the bare minimum? This is the standard. We've got to do this GRI reporting. Wouldn't it be a better model to go above and beyond and leave the planet better than we found it and actually be net positive? And so I know you're still kind of dealing with just getting people up to speed on this one level. Well, what if we set the bar higher and said, hey, there's even better model? You know, and so that's I kind of wanted to get your views and your points on that. And then I want to go back and talk about grow to zero. I think that's an excellent point. And I think that's the key sort of drive for gold standard. So, yes, on technical aspect, we are still working with our stakeholders to get to where we should be today. But the thought leadership, the growth to zero, the advocacy we're having is how do we go beyond that? And how do we use offset? Because these whole myth of offset is coming from doing the bare minimum. How can we use the market mechanisms to create that positive, like quote, unquote, positive scenario? If everybody's reducing within reaching net zero and using the offsetting market to compensate for the residual emission as a corporate, for example, you're actually reaching for the positive scenario. So how do we shift that ambition of the market? And then this is a this is a challenging one. And we've been our CTO and our team has been really driving this consultation with NGOs, with corporates. And of course, some of the progressive ones are really driving at that. But but still we have a huge population. We still need to bring with us. So to me, I always say carbon market shouldn't cover all projects. Carbon market or market mechanism shouldn't cover all project types. I mean, right now the main three are energy, land use and community based projects. But but nowadays everybody's trying to bring every possible project type into the market mechanism, given the hype. But can you ensure permanence? Can you ensure integrity of these projects? If not, then we shouldn't entertain that in the market because there's other mechanisms like climate finance. So for example, gold standard works with the consortium of partners like private equity, Pegasus Capital based in the US, BMP Paribas Bank in Paris Bank in France and few NGOs working on infrastructure projects and conservation issues like IUCN and R20. We created a 750 million dollar private equity fund to support small to medium size, micro to small size infrastructure projects in developing countries at a subnational city level. And gold standards role is to verify, monitor and measure and verify that impact at a fund level as well as at a project level. So we're saying not all projects need to force fit into offsetting scheme, but there's plenty of finance out there that you can access. So so to me, it's it's really having that macro view of what finances are available and where is the need and fitting that right into strategizing, putting that strategy in place to make sure you access finance accordingly based on the criteria that your investment your investment potential has. So so are you telling me that right now, maybe that those technical solutions, carbon capture stores, some of those other things are kind of ones that you're really haven't decided on yet, that you're kind of holding off and maybe there's some other markets. And you can see why I mentioned it, not only because of the Microsoft, but it was just a few months ago or not even a month ago that Elon Musk come out and said, you know, carbon capturing type of a of a prize or to the person who can do it, things like that. People are really looking for technical solutions to save and solve some of our climate change problems. And I guess I guess I want to know you think that they will do this, will these technical solutions to solve our problem or or you're just focusing in on these areas right now and that could be expanded in the future? No, I think we as a standard, we need to continuously explore technical solutions. And that's I think that's the solution for future that that new technologies need to be tested. And in the project types we have, these need to be taken into consideration. So we are actually reviewing carbon storage, carbon capture methodologies. And we are reviewing a potential expansion in removals portfolio using nature based solutions, project types. But but the conclusion of it is, of course, we will come out with consultations and and we will develop based on the consultation outcomes. But the point I wanted to make is that not all project types are fit for the market mechanisms. OK, now now I definitely want to get into grow to zero has been around since Marion was CEO as well. And I'd like you to maybe take us a little bit deeper into this if you can explain that and what what what is the grow to zero? So by 2030 Paris Agreement SDG aim for we're saying zero extreme poverty, zero hunger, zero deforestation and biodiversity loss, net zero emission. And and I think we've come to a point where we now know that this whole myth about sustainability measures need to come at expense of economic growth. I think that's proven wrong. And I think there's very much a global consensus around everything has to go hand in hand. So economic growth, the environmental integrity and preserving environment, natural resources and preserving societal values, improving societal values, all of these three elements in the triangle, they have to be balanced and they have to go together. So so growth to zero for us is not an individual project or an individual initiative, but it really governs our everyday life at gold standard, going from governance decisions to our project reviews to standard setting to our partnership, engagement to mobilizing resources and communicating basically grow to zero is a concept that's embedded in every step of our organization. So so that's what growth to zero is about for gold standard. You also kind of say it's kind of a race to net zero, right? Would that have to do that? You really want to get everybody on the exponential curve, the exponential function to operate, you know, there are people here, the exponential function and they're like, well, I don't understand that. That's a little complex. But we saw with the pandemic how exponentially fast the pandemic grew and around the world spread around the world. But there's not just the negative way of the exponential function. There's a positive way through critical mass and different ways to use the exponential function. You're almost like you say, race to net zero. There's also the the the exponential road map to the sustainable development goals to the Paris Agreement. Because we've had nine year or yeah, no, because we've had six years now of almost inaction or very little traction and movement. Now we're starting to reach that critical mass and getting hopefully towards this exponential commitments and growth to reaching the goal and target by 2030. And specifically, I guess you guys have a a very firm belief in the sustainable development goals and how to look at them, how to use them and how why and how we should achieve them. Can you maybe if you don't mind going a little bit more into how the gold standard really ties to the global goals? Why is it important? What what do you see how we should be looking at them? How they're made for each and every individual on what's kind of your stance on that? So sustainable development goal is a fundamental element of all of our goal standard projects and grow to zero. And you mentioned race to zero. So that's the the COP26 sort of the big campaign and where we slightly see it differently. I'm sure that the race to zero is also seeing it in a similar way. But race to zero means we need to race to net zero, where we're saying is we need to grow to zero. So we're not just racing to reach net zero, but we need to make sure that we're looking at this holistically at opportunities for positive societal, economic and environmental impact. So it's not just environmental net zero, but really looking at societal element as well. And and for us, that that really is integrated into all of our projects. So, for example, taking SDG five empowering woman. So we have a gender sensitive gender responsive framework where all projects that go through our system has to do a deep dive gender analysis, local stakeholder consultation and make sure they report against SDG five. And and basically, for example, if there's a project in northern Uganda where we're trying to improve the safe water supply for the households by implementing that project and by setting that gender responsive targets. We're seeing results, for example, the time spent by women and children fetching water like two to three hours were saved. And that save time can can translate into economic activities. And in the consultations, for example, the local water coming water committee sort of has gender balance because because of this project and is monitoring that. So so it's not necessarily really looking at it separately. But as part of building this carbon project or climate protection project, project developers are integrating these measures from the very outset and delivering the monitoring report to actually get that impact certified. So so that's how we see sustainable development in this. It's not a separate sort of UN thing, but it's just part of the project. And and how do we maximize that impact is I think is a bigger question than just reaching that zero. If we're doing harm society, harm and societal values and just reaching that zero, I think that's not a fair game. So how do we bring that balance is really the fundamentals of UNS teachings. I absolutely love that, you know, I speak about them a lot. I'm an advocate for the SDGs and they are definitely not just an add on to business as usual. We just don't plug them or cherry pick them and put them into business as usual and then say, OK, that's all right. They're a brand new first ever global moonshot, a global operating system that raises the bar higher. And really when we achieve them, they set a solid foundation and infrastructure for us to really springboard off into a lot of other solutions that we're still facing well into the future, give us more resilience and get us more into restoration and regeneration. The the discussions over the decades that I've had within the UN and the World Economic Forum. Really are what, you know, what are the top ten ways? What are the top hundred ways that we can draw down and fix our human suffering issues? Our environmental problems, our global grand challenges. And for a long time. There was a lot of there was no unity, no unification in this discussion. Nobody knew you'd hear 15 different answers under different answers and it wasn't really unified. And so I'm so glad for the Paris Agreement and the sustainable development goals in my list of the top four empowering women and girls always comes in there. It's the biggest impact, especially even if you look at Paul Hawkins' drawdown book, and he's getting ready to come out with a new book called Regeneration, which is kind of the sequel to the drawdown and moving in that similar direction. Empowering women and girls is so vital. You you you just mentioned that as one of the SDGs and one of the frameworks that you guys started that in 2018, basically your standard requirements to this gender frame equality framework. And I absolutely love that. And I love that, you know, the work in that you mentioned that because I know no one better than a wonderful person like you and a woman to empower women and girls and spread that message. I always feel a little uncomfortable when I'm spreading the message of women and girls. Harry, old guy, you know, saying that and they're like, what does that have to do? But it is such a huge impact on our world. And I really appreciate you bringing that up. I guess my first controversial question I really have for you today that moves into this the global goals are really how do you feel about global citizenry? A world without nations and borders and divisions of humanity, one from another, but more so maybe some global operating systems, some global solutions for us all, similar to the Paris Agreement and towards the sustainable development goals. And also maybe gold standards fillings on that because you work with organizations and countries and cities all over the earth. World without borders, it's a really interesting question. And the concept of sort of global citizen, the world without borders, it's been resonating in my head for a while. And people often say, are you a global citizen? I am. I'm a person of color or I work with diverse groups or I work in X number of countries. I mean, personally, I myself as a Korean American, having brought up in the US and South Korea worked in South Korea and working in Switzerland. I definitely don't see the borders constraining me. And I work with a diverse group of people, but I don't see that as a definition of global citizens. To me, a global citizen is having that awareness where, and I'll probably give a very simple example, I'm brushing my teeth and I'm running water. And without knowing, I'm running water for two minutes. And as a global citizen, I think all of us need to be aware that that water that's been wasted for two minutes can serve a house, a family, or a group of families in the other side of the world. And a product you buy at a grocery shop today is affecting lives of farmers across the border. You go to the bank in your pension fund, the investment the pension fund decides to make is investing in green investments or brown investments, whatever we want to call it, that affect the lives of people on the other side of the world. So to me, being a true global citizen is being aware that my action at this moment, at this time, is having an impact somewhere else. And we are sharing natural resources. There's no borders for natural resources. Some countries are just lucky to have abundance of natural resources, and some countries aren't. And some countries were lucky to be industrialized quicker, and some countries are just catching up. So we're sharing that global resource. And how do we do that fairly and balanced way? And I think global citizen means we recognize and be aware that we're part of that global community that's sharing resources, that's given to us freely. And how to do that responsibly. I think that's where the global citizenship concepts resonates with me. And the borders, I feel like I think I read a study long back a few years ago, where they did a study on what if you didn't have a border between two countries of similar size, similar GDP versus a rich and poor, and then did a study and both concluded that economically it's beneficial without a border. And but at the same time, I feel like we're all human beings. We need to be part of a community, part of a culture. And I think it's really about being respectful of the difference. So those borders create that difference inevitably. And how do we respect that with or without borders? And I think that resonates back to the hate crimes, the racism that we face in the US and all over the world. And I feel like global citizenship is really being aware of these things. And being responsible for your action and knowing that your action one day or at this moment is affecting somebody else's life and their families. So gold standard, I think we believe in the same concept. We sit here to make sure that there's equity, there's better equality, there's less scarce resources and there's more balance in the resources we use and that the global resources we have because we're so fortunate to be living on earth. And how do we make sure that we preserve that and do it in a credible and measurable way? So people aren't just putting labels on it. Well, I thank you for explaining that so eloquently and you definitely got the concept and idea and portrayed it so nicely. Just gold standard or even carbon offsetting and of itself, a lot of people don't know that carbon offsetting is not just CO2, it's all greenhouse gas emissions. But also those emissions don't hold to borders. They're like species, they're like nature, they're like wind and water and air. They move all around this earth, we're all on the same planet earth so it's very difficult to, we can calculate to a certain degree of accuracy, a footprint of a company and how we should do some, the bare minimum offsetting in a good way. But the greenhouse gas emissions, the emissions that are for the Amazon rainforest was burning in Brazil, it affects us all over the world. It just doesn't remain in those borders. And so we need to really, that in conjunction to what you so eloquently see kind of how to have that greater vision and there's plus and minuses. It's not a disappearance of culture and beliefs and even where you're born, but it's also on the other hand, that just because you were born in some impoverished place doesn't mean that you're also entitled to the basic needs of somewhere else that it would receive in America or in Europe or Germany or wherever you are in the world that we're all breathing the same air. We're breathing the same recirculated air that Gandhi and Caesar and whoever else in the world in history has breathed. And there is really no place on this earth that we can hide from climate change or hide from our environment, our climate, our air, our water if we drink it, it eventually will reach us all if we're here long enough. The next hardest question I have for you is truly the burning question. I ask all my guests this and it's WTF, the burning question and it's not what you would say or think this wayward, but it's what's the futures? And I wanna know from you and maybe gold standard, what's the futures, what's the direction and what's the plan where we're going? That's a second overwhelming question after your first question. The future, I mean, just very simply it has to be a better place. And I'm not saying we'll be conflict free in the future. I'm not saying we'll be just abundant with natural resources in the future. But all the fight we're doing, all the effort this generation is putting in should result in something. That's better for our next generations. So I hope the future will look more fair and equal. Men and women, different ethnicity groups, countries, cultures. I hope the future won't suffer from extreme hunger or poverty. That the future, our next generations don't have to worry about depleting depleted natural resources. That the next generation, the next generations will prosper with technology and efficiency. And all of that I think, I know this is very theoretical but that's what we're working towards. And I think that's the sense of my purpose as an individual, as a professional and also as gold standard. That's what we're headed towards. And in that, of course, there are technical things we need to do to raise the ambition of the market mechanisms we work in. Provide tools for the corporates to achieve their targets in a transparent and credible way and climate and development finance to developing countries need to be measured and reported properly and we'll do that. But the real future I hope to see is a better place for everyone. I truly hope so and I love how you described that. I wanna go, it's not really a step back but we're talking about the Paris Agreement and we're talking about the Sustainable Development Goals 2030. So we've got, before the decades out, nine years left, I really wanna go into offsetting specifically in the framework or the guidance of the Paris Agreement. What can you tell me there? Is there support and help for you there or is old vintage outdated things that are kind of still offsetting climate neutrality under the Paris Agreement? Or what is your understanding? How is the Paris Agreement helping with offsetting and moving us in that right direction? It's a very timely question because we just concluded the consultation as gold standard on aligning our gold standard for the global goals with the Paris and it is a controversial or I would say heated discussion but fundamentally everything has to align. If we have small groups in the corner doing its own thing and it's neglecting the global sort of efforts to account for carbon emission, this mechanism will not be credible. So for us it's important that we align with science and we hope that that means Paris Agreement and we will be considering some new rule updates for example corresponding adjustment. So that's the most contentious topic right now and I won't speak too much about it but we are actually getting very good constructive feedback from the market players as well as NGOs, CSOs and governments on how to practically implement this and what are some of the grace periods and transition support they need. So it's been a really tremendously helpful discussion challenging one but we hope to come out with some announcements fairly quickly in this year. Is this almost like stock cleaning or is this something else that we're talking about here? What do you mean stock cleaning? Like market or stock cleaning of these impactful climate actions through the Paris Agreement as it kind of we've got a fine tune and it really gets some more clarity on them or is it this something else? No, I think it's your spot on in a sense it's not cleaning I would say but it's really how do we bring the market and raise that ambition to align with science because the market hasn't really thought about that from a macro perspective. So we're driving that conversation to see if we can align that. And of course, we're only one standard and one body of a market player group so we need to make sure we're transparently consulting and hearing feedback before we come out with some concrete actions. So you guys do do certification for nature-based solutions such as forestry, land use, things like that. I've been in this for a while but I mean, it was really around 2014 when you guys started making some more bigger projects and certifying things around this. Why was that? And why did it change? And kind of because now, I mean, everywhere. It's like everybody's doing planetary and land and even in the news, you know, we're hearing about Bill Gates. He's doing this carbon farming buying up tons of land. And then, you know, I have probably 16 friends besides Felix Finkbiner who are all doing some kind of 1 trillion trees, a plant for the planet, whatever, you know, whatever. I wanna kind of hear your take on reforestation projects, what we should be aware of because right now people are being faced with that. I can't not tell you probably just this week alone I've had already five people say, hey, buy a tree, buy this section or, you know, do this offsetting. What should we be looking for? What's the certifying? And maybe can you go into more of that? So just clear up what we should be looking at what lens we should have on in this respect and what your guys' stance or direction of move for land use and forestry is. I know it's, I put you on the spot, it might be harder but I wanna kind of get into the sense-making of that. No, it's important question. Nature-based solutions are fundamental part of, you know, climate action and biodiversity. And I think it was last year when UN Secretary General said, he cited some studies saying NBS can provide like one third of cost-effective climate mitigation needed to reach the targets. And to me, nature-based solutions a critical area where we need to work on because it also includes addressing societal challenges which include food security, climate change, water security, human health, disaster risk, all of that. So NBS is a core priority for gold standard and we are actually really expanding into exploring what solutions there are and what project types there are for the offsetting market. But I have to say, we don't, and this is for the listeners who are familiar with the forestry sector projects, they know the differentiation between reforestation projects versus avoided deforestation projects but we don't support all kinds of projects, we don't support all kinds of forestry projects because of the environmental integrity issue and the longer-term permanence issue. And for reforestation project, we have a good example in Panama where, you know, sourcing timber from the rainforest, the primary rainforest, and timber trade has significantly depleted the tropical rainforest. So one of our project is introducing sustainable timber production while reforesting degraded pasture lands with mix of sort of the native tree species and teak and whatnot to ensure that we recreate the natural habitat and preserve the natural habitat for native animals and plants. So it's important that the project developers or the buyers of offset claims or offset credits are aware of the implication of these projects, like what's the project impact and benefit and how much of that is guaranteed. And some forestry projects are not guaranteed. So how do you make sure that you offset with a credible nature-based solutions in the market mechanism? So I personally believe that nature-based solutions has much more place with climate finance. And their narrow scope of nature-based solutions that can fit into the market mechanism where we need to guarantee one-to-one, one credit to one emission reduction. So planting trees, it's such a great marketing tool and you tell your grandmother and she'll understand. But what if it's burned down after 25 years? Or what if that planting tree displaced indigenous people in the forest? Or what if that depleted preserved animals in the habitat? So these safeguards, these permanence issues, these environmental integrity issues need to be addressed. And then I know this can go into much more technical details, but to me forestry is a sensitive topic. But I do believe in the power of nature-based solutions but not necessary all of them will fit into the markets. Yeah, some of the domestic authorities or there's a danger of corruption. I'm kind of more interested or focused in on I really want some of these to empower from the bottom up, the really small holders, the smaller community-based projects that have tremendous local SDG impacts, even though they might, because they might even be indigenous, they might not be aware that it's the SDGs, but because it's indigenous wisdoms and ways of doing things, there is a huge impact towards the SDGs and the Paris Agreement that really, that these smaller-based communities don't qualify for corresponding adjustments. They're too small and it would really be a pity if we couldn't find some kind of a mechanism that to get these communities into the market or to exclude them from the market and say, no, it's too small, it's too community, that we would really be nice to see if we could figure out some solutions there and maybe I'm a dreamer, I want to save the world and have these, but that's kind of why I brought up a lot of that as well. No, I think that's spot on. We're, I mean, clearly one of our unique portfolio mixture is the huge portfolio of community-based projects, especially in the most vulnerable communities. And we are very well aware of the challenges and the cost of getting the project certified. So we are very much committed to address that and make sure that they're not further marginalized or they're not marginalized in this transition period. I only have really four more questions for you. Three are really easy and the last one is a more, I wouldn't even say it's hard. It's just, it's really what we discussed earlier about getting the standard to a much higher standard or a much higher operating system for businesses, cities, the world in general. Instead of doing the bare minimum, what would you think if we just say, you know what? If you're going to be in business, you've got to remove all your historical carbon emissions or you've got to offer a strong planetary services where you're net positive. Do you see us really getting there anytime soon? Do you think it will take beyond this next decade of action beyond 2030? Or do you think there's some mechanisms that we could just set the bar a little bit higher for the world and instead of, I mean, we've gotten into this horrible mode of bureaucracy and debate and policy and doing the bare minimum. And that leads to corruption. It leads to so many other things where they say, okay, we're doing the bare minimum, we're meeting the standard. That's almost like saying we're going slower in the wrong direction, isn't it? You know, we're reducing our emissions, but we're still doing harm, we're just doing it slower. And so I guess this is probably the hardest thing is, what hopes, what thoughts do you have getting us to setting the bar a little bit higher and offering things that maybe shift the paradigm on where we should be in the future of business and the world as new operating systems. You know that paradigm shift that setting the bar high is always uncomfortable because it's asking you to get out of your comfort zone. And I think we as gold standards already been embarked on that journey while talking to very open-minded corporates, NGOs, CSOs, governments even and really trying to see how far we can go in raising that ambition. And I think that future is coming, but right now it's all voluntary. There's nothing that sort of incentivizes you to go beyond the bare minimum. So how do we create that is a big question. And as a small NGO standard setter it's hard for us to just single voice a singly advocate for that concept. It has to be a joint effort. And we're really pleased to be joining forces with quite a few respected NGOs and thought leaders in the industry where they're now seeing beyond that what you exactly described, what's next, what's in the future. So we're preparing for that. We're preparing a series of thought pieces on how to go net positive and how to use market mechanisms to get there. And in order to use that market mechanism what the market mechanism needs to look like in the next couple of years. So that's the journey. It's hard, it's challenging. I'm not the most liked person in the room often, but we gotta be there. So I think we're in a great position. People love gold standard. They respect and trust us and our projects. And we just need to collectively move that bar inch by inch higher as we go. So at some point we will be there when we're talking about net positive cases for corporates or cities. Maggie, I wanna tell you and all my listeners that I've put Maggie on the spot today and in different ways, you might not have been aware of that. The gold standard, sustain certain and others are very cautious about what they say, their script. There's a lot of politics and political correctness and some things because you're dealing with people from all over. Gold standard has wonderful communications officer persons that we've spoken to and there's all sorts of other things. But I want you to know that Maggie spoke from her heart. She spoke from her knowledge and breath of knowledge and gave us the real deal of what's going on. And for that I thank you. And my listeners will thank you that there was no creed washing or scripted anything that I've thrown most of my tools of things that you've come out very well and done excellent. And I think I really hope that my listeners and those who are listening to us will have a better understanding of this very complex, wonderful tools for us to really get to another place in the world. And the last three questions I have are actually for my listeners that I would like you to depart one message to my listeners as a sustainable takeaway that really has the power to change their life. It's your message. What would that message be? Reduce within finance beyond. I love it. I knew you would say that. What should young innovators in the field of carbon offsetting, maybe, yeah, just in the field of carbon offsetting be thinking about if they're looking for ways to make a true and real impact. Technology. I think technology will bring scale. I think technology will bring transparency and trust credibility and therefore credibility in the market. So for any young innovators entering into this market, I think using the knowledge of technology, using the power of technology is critical. And I think that's one of the reasons why we have sustainable as a sister company where they're driving the technology innovation using the digital platform to scale it so that project developers benefit from it, but also the buyers benefit from it and the retailers benefit from it. So it's using that technology. I think that's gonna drive real transformative change for this sector in future. What have you experienced or learned in your professional journey so far that you say, boy, I wish I would have loved to know that from the beginning, from the start. My life would be different or would love to have known that from the beginning. Power of teamwork. And I know it's so cliche to say, but I cannot stress it more. Everything's delivered by people, different people from different backgrounds. So power of teamwork, understanding differences and creating synergy out of those differences in common goals. I think that's something if I had known that in my year one, two, three of my career, I would have been a better employee at the time. I think that's important. And power of leadership. And people often think leadership comes from top management, but I think leadership comes from every level. And that's what makes me excited to work at Gold Standard because literally every single colleague of mine take leadership in their work. And I think power of that, and that goes sort of back to the notion of empowerment, like the culture of empowerment, if that's embedded in the organization, organization thrives. And I hope Gold Standard is thriving because of this culture embedded very deeply based on its sort of long history. So yeah, I wish I had known that early on, but it's not too late. That's fabulous. That's all I have and questions. It's been absolutely wonderful. We could talk for hours seriously. I have much more and we could go much deeper. At least we could put many people to sleep, but I think it's been fun. I've enjoyed every minute. If there's nothing else that you would like to add, I mean, this is your time, this last little a minute or two that if there is something you didn't get to say, that's vital for us to know and now it's your chance. Otherwise, I really thank you and I just say goodbye. Thank you very much. Goodbye. Thank you.