 Several speakers mentioned cost optimizations, but in general, we skirted the issue of costs and carbon pricing. So what market or policy levers do the people think will take to make carbon value and and and net carbon systems a reality. Damian for instance mentioned our LCFS standard is being critical to slumber jays plant viability that's one of the highest carbon values in the world. So I'm I'd be interested in any of the speakers or panelists thoughts on policy levers and and market levers. And we've talked about CFS which is quite a local thing in a world sense. I think we're only we are only going to be able to move forward if we have some sort of worldwide incentives or worldwide taxes. For example, in take Europe for example, if we do have a if we do set up a significant carbon tax, we'll also have to have this carbon tax within but also within Europe, but also for for materials that don't have any sort of carbon tax coming into Europe. So to avoid any sort of any companies having to shut down because they don't have that don't have the revenue and being being undercut by other places. So I think there has to be a worldwide thoughts about this and getting as many people on board, but the tax is going to or taxes or incentives are going to have to go both ways and try to make sure that everyone's on a level playing field. And to complement that and I'll try to talk about this but I was over my 10 minutes talking about market mechanism. I think that right now, there is no real market mechanism to value carbon by the market itself not by policies and incentives and prices that by the market and if you look at consumers of commodities of steel and cement and ammonia etc. They are some of them and it will grow quite fast if they all have net zero targets, themselves, they will be interested in buying decarbonized products, but right now there was no real option for them to buy those products. Just sporadically or using some some carbon credit markets or offsets. And so I think that the emergence in the next few years of trustable auditable global systems whereby one can access commodities that are decarbonized and pay a premium for that will be growing in the coming years and becoming more and more prevalent. And this is something that we already testing for example in the cement industry how can you have a global carbon intensity target for cement and actually being able to sell lower carbon intense product in the market and asking the consumers of those products to pay a premium for that. It seems a little bit idealistic right now, and some people will raise eyebrows and saying nobody will pay a premium. But I think that's, you know, it's not only about the government. It's not only about consumers, you need to have parallel pathways to develop this and a market mechanism will complement policies in providing the confidence for people to invest 100 million in decarbonizing their plans. And, you know, much of it will be done across a variety of sectors and hopefully sooner rather than later. And I think we can see the value of some of these local policies right if you look at the LCFS in driving the renewable natural gas boom, you look at Europe for HBO, with the large all volumes locked up there. The issue is the small markets right so so getting additional volumes into play whether that's through additional states taken on the LCFS model, or Europe more broadly applying some of its taxations would be would be very useful. I mean that plays into that more global market, market size. I would add to the to the customer though, you know, customers are asking more and more for some of this decarbonized low carbon or off setting type of offers. And we see this in Europe right so there is going to go zero fuel in the UK market in Netherlands and other markets now where there is a small uplift in premium a little bit like, you know, advanced fuels where you have the power like Michelle, you're prepared to pay a small uplift to to offset where we vehicles on possible. And I think also that maybe customers or consumers of one sort or another. Actually don't know the final cost I think we should start to discuss the final cost of products which are decarbonized and we may find out we already know that it's not always a huge premium. So we start to sort of communicate on that. That may help a way forward and also may help policy, because then our, our deciders in general politicians may then sort of think okay it's not that that expensive we can move forward on this. Jim and Sabina, any comments from from you and I'll move on to the next question after you. So I think that looking back at what I was saying about the big innovation gap and the kind of acceleration that we need. There is definitely a case to support, even with like technology specific support certain developments. I think what was said about market mechanisms can definitely also be a strong incentives, especially if you also communicate a certain minimum carbon prices, then the question arises of course, how, how high should the carbon price be, and should it be worth the same as avoided CO2. And in principle if we could measure the sort of climate effect of a removed ton and sort of break that down then the price should be be the same. There would be all sorts of distortions and external effects that you that you might want to want to take into account. And I think that is that is something to to to move towards to so the in Europe, for instance, the commissioners is working on a carbon removal certification mechanism. And of course with a view to what's the possibility to also include the remuneration of carbon removal in in in market based systems. I'm not saying that it would be included anytime soon in the in the emissions trading trading system. We're there yet. But that would definitely be be be a sign for investors as a strong signal to to sort of act upon. In the end, a ton of CO2 that we decide we still have to have around with sort of need to pay for its for its own removal and in such a system. The problem then is if we go net negative, who, who, where does the revenue come from to pay for that. Then we're sort of asking companies to that that remove that go net negative to provide a sort of public good. And yeah, I think I'll leave it with that I have a lot of thoughts. And then of course there are, you know, there are other drivers of that carbon negative aspect and their companies, the Amazon the tech companies, other companies in different parts of the world that are pushing for for carbon removal and carbon negative technologies to be developed that that's not a big enough push to answer this but it will help drive the technology. We have one question from a tool that was asked relatively early on this morning. The question is what do you see is the most critical milestones by 2030 for the US to get to net zero by 2050. And I don't think we have to restrict this question just to the US. So what are the critical milestones by 2030 to get to net zero by 2050 different panelists and speakers see. 2030 milestone would be progressing several of these friends that we talked about whether it's a geologic sequestration whether it's a converting to some valuable fields or nature based solutions. I think there has to be significant sort of change or increase in these activities by 2030 so unless that happens I think it would be challenging anything meaningful, we can achieve that goal by 2050. So here we are in 2021 I think we have nine years and obviously we need to see a lot more progress. And by 2030. So we're talking about a step change in all of these technologies. I think in terms of storage. If we do know the step step change that we want to go to 20 to 2050 or beyond. Then by 2030 we're going to have to have demonstration products, projects around the world on different types of aquifers on land and offshore, just so that we can as a whole. There are stakeholders that the storage is possible. I think that's that's, I think we have to have all of these in place. So, so the Northern Lights project. The other projects in the North Sea in in in depleted, depleted reservoirs, we would be nice to have a project of the same, the same scale in the Middle East. In Australia, sorry, no, and of course in the US but around the world we're going to need large, medium tons, several medium term demonstration products projects in place by 2030. In the scale of timelines right if we haven't got, not just in CCS but in across the board with a second generation by mass deconstruction pilots or be that hydrogen or any of the technologies that we want to get in play, including storage. We need to have pilots across the border and globally to give that 10 or 15 year ramp up time and potentially even 20 year ramp up times we don't have that stealing the ground by 2030 then we're on the back foot. We really need to have up and running plants in each critical sector in the cement in steel. There are some that are a bit more like low hanging food like ammonia or hydrogen or biofuels. Certainly we need to have a very good idea on costs and where we can get in ends of a kind. We need to have already the line of sight for the creation of large scale hubs in critical place where you have large industrial concentration. I think Europe is taking a little bit of a lead there around the North Sea Rim. Much more needs to happen in the US to have a concerted approach around developing those help as opposed to having, you know, in my backyard kind of approach from my point source to dedicated storage. All work needs to be done in collaboration to develop those those networks, and that will give really the foundation for a very large scale deployment. Those one of projects are important to demonstrate cost and to understand how it works, but really those networks are really what will be the backbone to create deployment at large scale. I think hubs is a very critical point that sometimes we forget quite simply because the use of hubs will overcome problems of intermittency, intermittent in terms of energy but also intermittent in terms of emissions for example if we have a future scenario where we're going to be using natural gas combustion to overcome some of the energy dips in renewable energy. So these are natural gas stations are up and running stopping up and running stopping and we can't have the capture technologies that it actually takes time to get this capture technology to ramp up. So the use of hubs will overcome these sort of things. And of course we'll also have economy risk as we go to go to this some of these hubs.