 Climate change is the greatest challenge of our time. It affects every aspect of our lives, and there's no doubt that we all need to be doing our part to tackle it. We're seeing many ambitious pledges these days from governments and institutions. And while some NGOs, activists or parties are demanding more, others are trying to step on the brakes. But where does a central bank like the ECB fit into all of this? Can we contribute? And if so, how? You're listening to the ECB podcast, bringing you insights into the world of economics and central banking. My name is Katie Ranger. Some of you might be thinking, hang on, where's Michael? And indeed, it's not just the climate that's changing, but also this podcast. After hosting 15 episodes, Michael has passed the baton, or in this case, the microphone, on to me. For my first episode, I'm happy to be joined by our executive board members, Isabel Schnabel and Frank Eldersen. Isabel and Frank, thank you for taking the time and welcome to the ECB podcast. You've both spoken a lot about the importance of dealing with climate change. Why exactly is this topic so close to your hearts? How did that come about? So let me say that even before I joined the ECB, I was actually quite interested in climate change issues, but I must admit that when I joined, I was actually in the beginning quite reluctant with respect to the role of central banks in climate change. And since then, my thinking has developed quite a bit. So I have talked to many people. I talked to Frank. I talked to our president. And I think once one appreciates how important the financial sector is for this green transition, I mean, one has to admit that we as central bankers have to think about our role in the fight against climate change. And I think this has been the main reason why my own thinking has changed a bit. You know, I think that, you know, I grew up with nature, with my parents walking in the woods, walking through the dunes, on the islands to the north of the Netherlands. So to me, realizing at some point in my career that I could actually play a role in combining what a central bank can do and must do, what a potential supervisor can do and must do. And at the same time, contributing to conserving that nature for future generations was kind of like a, you know, a very important moment that I thought, boy, I can do these two things at the same time. It's not mutually exclusive. Central banks and supervisors within their mandates, of course, and we would talk about that, but they have a role to play. And I can play that role as well. Now, Frank, you mentioned our mandate. And before we dig a bit deeper into what a central bank can do in the fight against climate change, let's zoom out a little bit and just see the bigger situation. A lot has been happening in the fight against climate change since we last talked about it on the podcast back in April 2020. Here at the ECB, we've been discussing our approach to climate change as part of our strategy review. And we've established a climate change center as well. The European Union has committed to reducing carbon emissions by at least 55% by 2030. And they also aim to be carbon neutral by 2050. The US is back in the game with equally ambitious goals. And there has also been movement on sustainable finance and the role of financial markets and banks. Now, from your point of view, where would you say we currently stand in the global fight against climate change? Well, I think that we are at a very pivotal moment in which there is awareness. We now know. And when I say we, I mean governments, I mean NGOs, of course, who have been pushing this for a long time, but also central banks and supervisors. And it's more than awareness. It's also that now many actors have actually published commitments. So there is promises all around the world. I don't know how many governments have already said, we have a certain time path to going to the ultimate goal, which is net zero. But that's words. And now we need action. So that's why I say this is a pivotal moment. It's super important to have gotten where we are now. Because getting to this awareness, getting to these commitments was a very long journey, as you know. But now we must put this into action. Words need to become deeds. Promises need to become action. And we need to get where we need to get. And that's a net zero economy. So actually, I couldn't agree more. And I mean, we need action. And what we actually need is global action. And let me explain a bit why this is actually the case. So what we are facing here is a type of market failure. So what economists call an environmental externality. So what does that mean? That means that those who are responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions are not those who are bearing the costs. The costs are borne by everybody globally. And this implies that, let's say, for an individual country, there is a low incentive to deal with this if the others are not participating. And I think this is one of the big problems. And this is why we have to make sure that everybody is participating. And you mentioned in your introduction, Katie, the US. And so we are now, I mean globally, we are in a completely different situation. So there is really a willingness to act at a global scale. I must say I'm very happy that Europe is willing to take a leading role. But as Frank said, I mean, this is not just about words. It's about deeds. There is an urgency to act now. And this is because climate change is at least partially irreversible. And the costs of delayed action are so high that we really need to act now. It's quite clear that it's on everyone's mind at the moment. But the fact is that the agendas of governments and institutions has been very much dominated by the coronavirus pandemic for the past year. And that doesn't really look set to change at least in the immediate future. The lockdowns that we've had, they've shown that actually we can do with a lot less travel and working. We've been able to see that a lot of work can be done remotely as well. So that could potentially change how we work in the future. But would you say that this has actually changed how we look at climate change and what our approach is to fighting it? You know, first of all, you know, whenever we talk about the pandemic, I feel a need to express how awful it is and how people are suffering So that's the first thing. And then, of course, this has created massive economic disruption. And that has actually led to a quite impressive decrease in global emissions. But that's of course not what we need, not this way. Because what we need is structural change. And to explain a little bit, you know, what I think about when I say that, you know, if you have a coal-fired electricity plan and because of economic disruption, you know, it's not used or it's used less during a year. After that year, you know, you fire the thing up and here go the emissions again. So what we need instead of that coal-fired plan, we need solar panels and we need windmills. That is structural change. Now, so yes, to give you a number, there was like a 6% decrease in global CO2 emissions in 2020. But now, you know, predictions are that actually 80% of that will just come back this year. And by the way, 6% sounds like a lot, but it's less than we have to do every single year as of today until 2030 and beyond to get to where we need to go. So it's really just a dent? It's a dent and it's a dent that is not structural. And of course, you know, the way to get to a net zero economy is not by perpetuating the current lockdowns. We must create a world in which people can live like they want to live and like they should live. On the one hand, on the other hand, get to that decrease. So, but it's not just a negative story because I think there is positive things here as well. It has shown that the world needs to work together. It has shown that we can change our ways, the things that we thought were impossible to change. We changed from one day on the other because there was this necessity, because we felt that there was a global super urgency. Now, I think that the lesson that we need to draw from this pandemic that in terms of climate, there is just a super urgency, just such a super urgency as there was with the pandemic. It's just a little bit more abstract. For some people, it's a little bit further down the road, further in the future. But actually we need to act today with the same kind of urgency. So I mean, when I think about the lessons from the pandemic, I really think they can help us to also deal with climate change. So when you think about the health crisis, so it's clearly not sufficient if we solve the problem in one individual country that will not end this health crisis. And the same is true for, let's say, carbon emissions. So if we reduce carbon emissions in one country and all the others continue doing what they did before, this won't help. And so we have to act collectively. And I think we are seeing in this pandemic that this is possible, as Frank also stressed, and this is very important. And there is this famous saying by Winston Churchill, never let a good crisis go to waste. And I really think we should make use of this terrible crisis in a good way and take action and build back better and seize the opportunity of this crisis. And I basically see three types of policy actions that we should push forward after the pandemic. So the first, and that's probably the most important one, is a carbon price, ideally at a global level, even if that will take some time. The second is investment and innovation. So this is partly public investment, but it's also to a much greater extent actually private investment. And in order to finance all that investment, we also need a well-developed capital market. And the development of the European capital market is a very important European project. And the president in a recent speech promoted that we should think of the capital market union in a sustainable way. So we should think about a green capital markets union. And I find that very promising for the following reasons. So we have seen that progress on capital market union has been relatively slow. And the reason is that we already have all those structures that are not so easy to change. But when we think about a green capital market, there are many things that have to be built anew. And that's actually easier, I would say. And we should use this chance also to remain the leader in this area of green finance in Europe. And I think this offers great opportunities. So it really sounds like there's a lot of momentum around at the moment to tackle climate change. And Isabel, you mentioned President Lagarde. She's repeatedly stressed that we as well as a central bank need to play our part and that we're committed to playing our part. Now, Frank, I'm turning to you as the lawyer here in the room. Let's talk about the legal aspects that are at play here. We've seen cases emerging across the world of people and organizations actually suing policymakers to hold them accountable essentially for their actions against climate change. Here in Germany, for example, the top court recently sided with young activists and urged the German government to review their current climate targets to lower the burden for future generations. And these kind of legal aspects also shaped the debate on central banks and climate change. Now, we hear calls from both sides. We hear those voices demanding that central banks act now and that we use our tools to actually help economies transition to a more sustainable future. On the other side, we also hear those that say, well, actually, it's not our job to fight climate change. And if we were to act, we will be overstepping our mandate. Frank, why is this so unclear? Right. Well, thank you for this question because it's a very topical one. I think there is, and I will try to get to the answer very specifically and a little bit legally in a second. But now that you mentioned these various court cases, I think until very recently the predominant concern on the part of central bankers and supervisors was that we would be sued for doing too much, for overstepping our mandate. And I must say, I've been warning for quite some time that there's also the risk that we are going to be sued for doing too little and too late for not living up to our mandate. And both is not good. So we shouldn't overstep and we shouldn't underdeliver. So what does a lawyer do? A lawyer looks in the treaties and just starts reading what it says. And then, of course, it needs to be interpreted. But if you just read the text, it's actually pretty clear. We have a primary objective. And the primary objective is price stability. So that's what is our compass. We need to get to price stability. The European Court of Justice has said that it also means that within our mandate falls the preconditions for getting there. So it's a little broader than just the price stability. We can also focus on helping to create the preconditions that we need to get to price stability. But there's more in the treaty. It also says that we must support the economic policies in the European Union. It actually says specifically the shell. Shell means there's an obligation. We must. It's slightly stronger wording. But it's qualified. It says without prejudice to the primary objective. So we cannot do something in terms of supporting the economic policies in the Union, which were to hamper our primary objective of getting to the price stability objective. Now, what does it mean in practice? Because this sounds like very legal speech, maybe. What does it mean in practice? If we are looking at two possible measures that we could take to get to price stability, and we are weighing which one to take and just in this hypothetical, if both were to be just as effective to reach our primary price stability goal, but you could differentiate between the two in that one would really clearly support economic policies in the Union. And the other would not. For example, if I talk about economic policies in the Union, climate of course is a very prominent one of those, and one that has been given a lot of priority. So I'm looking at these two possible measures. We are discussing this in the executive board. We are discussing this in the governing council. Both are just as effective. And we don't throw the dice, but we look at the secondary objective. We say, okay, this one really contributes, really supports the climate. The other one doesn't. And then we must take the greener option. That's how it works. Got it. So if you're presented with two options, you have to choose the one that supports the fight against climate change. Put bluntly. As long as these two have the same effect on the primary objective, because in the end, the main compass is and remains the price stability. So maybe I can add a bit. I mean, of course not on the legal side. Frank is the expert there. And I think his explanations were very convincing. But I would like to explain a bit why this is actually so controversial. And I think what we're seeing at the moment is quite a remarkable evolution of central banking. So traditionally, you would think of central bankers as these technocrats in dark suits, right? Staying away from politics and also, by the way, away from the general public. And I mean, we have to be aware of the fact that there was quite a hard battle for central bank independence. And this kind of also came at the price of clearly steering away from politics. But what we've seen in recent years, basically I would say after the global financial crisis, is that there has been a loss of trust in central banks. And the central banks have probably in response to that started to engage more with the general public, as we have done in the context of our strategy review by having these listening events. And I mean, when you talk to people, I mean, you hear what they care about and what they expect from us. And this kind of reminds us of our responsibilities. And I think it was actually an occasion to look more closely at the mandate and to discover that some of those things were already in there. And I think this is what's actually happening. And what we now have to prove is that we can care about climate change, but at the same time stay just as committed to our price stability objective as we have been before. So this is, I think, our big challenge going forward. So it sounds like we really have an obligation to act, not just from a legal perspective, but also from a more human perspective, shall we say? And it's not perhaps so much a question of whether we should take action, but rather of what form that action should take. And before we get into the how, perhaps we can just look at the other side of the coin, Frank, and could you tell us if there's anything the treaties say we cannot do? Sure. Very good question too. And indeed, we always have to be very careful to not overstep our mandate. We must remain within this mandate for the very reason that Isabelle so very well explained. And so it's very good to look in the treaty what we can do and what we must do, but it is also very good to look at where the limits are. Now one of these limits I've already mentioned, and that is what the lawyers called the without prejudice clause. So there is kind of like a Chinese wall, if you like, around the primary objective. And all that we do and all that we may do under the secondary objective, under the we shall support these economic policies, may not hamper the price stability objective. So this without prejudice clause is a clear limit that we would always have to respect. And then there is other authorities that we have to respect and they have their own competences. And most notably governments have to make governments have decided to sign the Paris Agreement. Governments make climate acts. Governments tell us that we have to face out diesel cars or coal fired engine plants, etc. That's not us. We are not a climate policy maker. We are a central bank and a supervisor. So in that sense we are not a policy maker, but we are a policy taker, you could say. And then, and this is a little bit more legal, but I think it is also easily to be understood, we have to be proportional. So whenever we take measures, we have to think about, okay, what is the goal that we serve? What is what is the aim that we have? And here is a proliferation. Here is a toolbox for potential measures that we could take. Then we take the measure that gets us to the goal, but doesn't go further than that. So we shouldn't be more radical than needed. And that's the proportionality principle. So the without prejudice clause is one limit. Respecting other authorities competences is another and the third would be the proportionality principle. So let me give an example what it actually means to be constrained by our price stability objective. So let's say that we have to tighten our monetary policy in view of our price stability objective for reasons that are unrelated to climate change. Then we must not hesitate to act. So it cannot be that we say, oh, we cannot do that because that would imply that we no longer buy green bonds. So that clearly would not be admissible. So as I said in a speech, we should not move from green neglect to green dominance. I think that's very important. Let me give you another example. So for example, we could not limit our purchases just to green bonds because the green bond universe is simply too small. And it would not allow us to implement the monetary policy stance that is actually needed. It sounds like there are quite a few lines and fine lines to find in all of this. Isabel, you mentioned price stability and that is indeed one of our two mandates. And I'd like to zoom in on that one a little bit. How exactly does climate change affect prices? So what exactly is the link between, say, the warming of the planet and the price of goods? Could you explain that a little bit for our listeners? Yes, happy to do so. So there are various ways in which climate change affects our ability to maintain price stability. And I mean, I could talk about this for hours, but let me just stress three very important channels. So the first is monetary transmission. So this is the question, how do our measures actually feed into the real economy? And as you know, this depends very much on the banking sector. And so if climate change affects the banking sector, this also affects monetary transmission. So that's channel number one. The second channel, and now it becomes a bit more technical, I'm afraid, is related to what economists call the natural real rate of interest. So the famous R star, you may have heard about it. And so this is actually a very important interest rate because it tells us how to set our interest rates in order to achieve the desired monetary policy stance, whether we want to be tight or accommodative. And so this R star is incredibly important. And it's very likely to be affected by climate change. And many economists believe that it's actually likely to fall due to climate change. And that implies that our monetary policy actually becomes more constrained. So this limits our ability to stabilize the economy. So already now our star is very low, which means that we're always in the danger of hitting what is called the effective lower bound. And this problem may become more severe. So that's the second channel. And the third channel is actually referring to the conduct of our monetary policy. So we know that climate change is likely to affect different parts of the euro area in very different ways. And this poses a challenge for a single monetary policy. And similarly, I mean, we think that extreme weather events become more frequent. And normally monetary policy would look through such supply-side shocks. But this becomes much more difficult if such shocks occur much more frequently. And so you see there are really many ways in which climate change affects our monetary policy. And we have to take that into account. Of course, first of all, in our modeling, I mean, our current models do not yet capture all these things. So that will be the first step. But the second step is then also in our monetary policy operations. Now, Isabel, you mentioned our more unconventional policy measures. And I'd like to actually look at more detail in one of those, one of the ways that we maintain price stability. And that's through our asset purchases. And these have also been playing quite an important role in our coronavirus pandemic response as well. What do we do? We buy assets from banks. And by doing so, we offer them money that they can then lend on to households and companies. And doing this stimulates consumption and investment in the economy. What has that all got to do with climate? Well, we're often criticized for disproportionately supporting carbon-intensive industries in our asset purchases. And some even urge us to stop buying assets from fossil fuel companies and polluting industries altogether. Is about what would be your response to those who want us to stop buying assets from these companies? Put simply, why can't we just buy more green bonds? So there is one principle that we adhere to in our asset purchases, which is called the market neutrality principle. And I mean, when we're buying assets, we have to ask which assets do we buy? And market neutrality means that our asset purchases correspond to the outstanding volume of bonds. So if a company issues more bonds, we will also have more bonds of that company in our portfolio. Let me explain where this principle comes from. So the original idea was that we wanted to make sure that we did not undermine the price discovery in the market. So we did not want to change relative prices of the bonds of one company compared to another. And we want to ensure that markets are still functioning properly. However, recently it has been increasingly challenged whether the market is actually such a good benchmark in the presence of market failures. So the fear is that if we stick to this principle that we may actually reinforce existing biases and that this may delay the transition to a carbon-free economy. And if one looks at our private sector asset purchase program, I mean one can see that there is actually a very strong weight of the carbon or emission intensive firms. And that is very easy to explain because those firms tend to be very capital intensive. So the firms that are emitting a lot are those that have these big factories. And so they depend a lot on external finance and they issue a lot of bonds. And this is then also reflected in our bond portfolio. So we have to ask ourselves whether this is the proper way to proceed. Well, the interesting thing is I'm listening very carefully to what you just said. Isabel, I think you explained it very clearly. So from a legal point of view, you know, what I said earlier, well, lawyers, what they do, they pick up the treaty, they start reading and they see what it says. And the funny thing is that if you look in the treaty, there is nowhere where you can find market neutrality. It's just not a legal concept. There is something similar in the treaty because it says that we should adhere to the principle of a open market economy with free competition, favoring an efficient allocation of resources that is in the treaty. So we should favor an efficient allocation of resources. It doesn't say market neutrality. Now, if we came to the conclusion that maybe the market is not pricing in everything that needs to be priced in, that there might be, as Isabel has explained earlier, externalities, then just blindly following the market might be market neutral, but it might not be in line with the principle of an open market economy with free competition, favoring an efficient allocation of resources. So that in the end needs to be our guiding principle. So if market neutrality as a principle is increasingly challenged by those looking at our bond purchases with respect to climate change, and it's not even a legal concept, as we've just heard, what are the alternatives? What options do we have? Conceptually, this is very clear. So basically, we should move from a principle of market neutrality to a principle of market efficiency. And this would be exactly in line with the treaty, as Frank stressed before. The question, of course, is what does that mean in practice? So it seems to suggest that we should tilt our asset purchases in the direction of less emission intensive firms. But this, of course, has to be operationalized. And this is tricky. And we are discussing this a lot, how this could be done in a proper way. My prediction is that we will discuss this for quite some time, because it's really complicated. Maybe one point I could say on this already now is that I personally do not think that an exclusion of particular companies is the way to go. And the reason is the following. I mean, the carbon intensive companies are those where the potential change in carbon emission is largest. So in the end, if our goal is to reduce carbon emissions, our policies should send incentives for precisely those firms to reduce their carbon emissions. And this is why just excluding those firms would probably be the wrong thing to do. And this is something that we really have to think about. Because you would be taking the capital away from them that they need to change. Exactly. These are precisely the firms that need capital in order to change their procedures and processes and in order to move closer to carbon neutrality. We've talked quite a bit about the link between climate change and monetary policy. But of course, this is only one part of the story, because as a central bank, the other part of our mandate is to supervise banks. Frank, you are the vice chair of the ECB supervisory board. What role do banks play in the transition towards a green economy? And how exactly are we supporting them as supervisors? Now, banks have a key role to play. And maybe you can look at it that there's two sides of the same coin. There is a risk story to this, so they have to manage their material risks. Banks have had to do this forever. And now we understand that climate-related risks are also financial risks and therefore need to be managed by the banks. And the good news, by the way, is that traditional risk management categories such as credit risk, market risk, operational risk, liquidity risk, they serve their goal also in this new, if you like, this new climate world. But there is also the other side of the coin, and that is that there's opportunities. We are going to make this wonderful shift from brown to green, so the entire economy is going to change. And that needs to be financed, and banks play an incredibly important role, especially here in Europe, to do that. Banks have to think in terms of their governance, their business models, to be able to make sure that they can actually make that contribution. So their business models need to become sustainable in all meanings of that word as well. If you want me to go on a little bit more, what we are doing then is that we have published, in terms of the risk side, we have published a guide on climate risk and environmental risk at the end of last year. And this guide contains a number of supervisory expectations, where we actually tell the banks what we expect them to do. Now, this is new, so it's a journey, and at the same time, we have asked the banks to come up with action plans and say, okay, this is where we stand, that's the self-assessment, and this is the action plan as to how we as a bank think that we go from A to B. And B is complying with our supervisory expectations. Now, we will be engaging actively with the banks, giving them feedback on the self-assessments, on the action plans, and we will make that part of what is our normal supervisory cycle, if you like, which we call the SHREP process, the supervisory yearly process in which we will visit the banks. And if needed, we can use the entire box of instruments that we have, tools that we have, to make sure that they become compliant. It will be a journey, so this is the first year, as of next year, and beyond. I think our reaction will become more forceful. So Frank, I think what's going on on the supervisory side is quite important. I mean, what I'm wondering about is how shall the banks do that? I mean, do they have the information that they need in order to judge what is greener or less green? So how do you deal with that on the supervisory side? Right. Well, this is a key question. So thanks for asking that, Isabel. This is about data. So do banks know in terms of the clients that they have, the corporates that they lend to, do they know how these corporates are doing in their transition path to a net-serial economy, for example? So this is work in progress, work that's being done, but we say as a supervisor, you cannot hide. The risks don't go away because you don't have perfect insight yet. Actually, without perfect insight, the risk might be higher than you think now. So we visit the banks, we require them to act on these risks now, and we know that in the years to come, the data will become better. This year, we are actually on the macro-prudential side, we are doing a stress test. Next year, we will be stress-testing the banks. So stress-testing meaning that we have various scenarios, and then we ask the banks, okay, how would you fare? How will your balance sheet do under a scenario in which climate change will just go on and will not be decreased by the government on the one hand, so a hothouse world, as we call it, or on the other hand, how would you do in a much more orderly transition? And actually, there's one other thing that I wanted to mention in this context. Also in our fit and proper evaluation, so if you want to become a banker, we have to evaluate whether you are fit and proper to do so. We will increasingly be asking also for knowledge on the part of the bankers in Europe of how climate change is relevant for their banks, so that we make sure that they will not forget and deal with these issues. So making sure that the expertise is there to get to that point. So Frank, this climate stress test that is just ongoing, the macro stress test, in my view is extremely fascinating. I mean, we have this great team working on that. And what I really find amazing is that all this would not have been possible a couple of years ago. I mean, it's based, I mean, it's called macro stress test, but it's still based on extremely granular data sets. So it's based on firm level data, the emissions at firm level. Then, of course, we have this extremely granular data set on bank loans. And we can bring all of that together. And then we have these scenarios and we can see what's going to happen with systemic risk. I find that really fascinating, I must say. It is. And what I've been told is that in this database, we have access to data of 4 million corporates, 2,000 banks. We are looking 30 years ahead. So it's from an intellectual point of view, it's fascinating. And if you look at the issue, it's also extremely needed. So on the one hand, it's wonderful that we can now do this, but we better be able to do this because climate change is upon us and we need to deal with this. Before we end, I actually have one question that we'd like to ask all of our guests on the podcast. If you had to recommend one must read or must watch about today's topic, what would that be? What would be your, shall we call it, hot tip for our listeners? So when you asked us to think about this, the first thing that came to my mind, and you may be surprised about that, was the story of the Little Prince by Saint-Exupery. Because if you think about it, this really has a lot to do with sustainability. I mean, remember how this little prince is taking care of his little planet, how he wants to make sure that his little planet is not destroyed by the Baobab trees, how he looks after his quite capricious rose. I think it's really beautiful, and you know, the little prince looks at all this through the eyes of a child. And I remember very well when my children were still a bit younger, you know, when they were seeing photographs of dying ice bears, let's say. I mean, it would make them extremely sad and they kind of had this feeling that they wanted to do something about this. And maybe sometimes we should also look at those things through the eyes of a child to just remind ourselves what we are risking if we do not act. I have the book at home. That's very nice. I'm going to read it tonight with that new perspective in mind. Frank, how about you? Well, you know, we didn't coordinate this, but I love your answers. You know, when I thought about this, I thought I would just be very open and tell a personal story. You know, after last summer in pandemic, knowing that this would take longer, I felt that I needed to do something green myself. And every day I tried to walk for like an hour in our town, and I started picking up acorns. You know, there's lots of oak trees there. And I told my wife that, you know, I wanted to try to grow them this winter. But I didn't tell her how many I picked up. So, and I picked up about 80. 80. Yeah, 80. Because I thought, you know, this is an experiment, so probably it doesn't work. So I need to have one or two oak trees in the end. You know, I need to start. So, and I actually, you know, there's a whole process. You put them in the fridge. I didn't tell my wife then. And because they have to think it's winter, the acorns. And then, you know, in January, you take them out and you'll plant them and then you have to water them every day and everything. So now we're balcony. Now we have 80 little oak trees and looking at them and actually now giving them away and saying to someone, you know, if you plant this and if you care for this, it might, you know, survive for two centuries. It's something very deep. And now you come with the little prince who kind of like waters his plans and everything. That really relates to me. Thank you. Isabel Frank, thank you so much for this discussion today. Thank you so much, Katie. My pleasure. Thanks. Well, that brings us to the end of this episode. For more information on climate change and central banks, check out the show notes. You've been listening to the ECB podcast with Katie Ranger. If you like what you've heard, please subscribe and leave us a review. We'd love to hear from you, so do share your feedback and ideas with us via social media. Until next time, thanks for listening.