 Hi everybody. Can you hear me in back? Thank you for being here. First of all I should say my name is Rob Jackson. I'm a professor here in Earth System Science. I know some of you but not all of you and nice to be back in the classroom as always. That's my pleasure today to introduce Marcelo Mena who's really been an incredible mix of scientist, engineer and advocate and successful policy makers. That's what you'll hear about today and I'm excited to hear about it. To give you just a very brief background Marcelo has degrees in biochemical engineering, civil and environmental engineering. Both here in the United States at Iowa State and in Chile where he is from and is currently based. In the last five years just to give you a few examples of his high energy he was the environment minister for the country of Chile and he went from there to the World Bank and just recently was named the inaugural CEO for the brand new methane hub. The methane hub is a $300 million commitment from philanthropic organizations not to do research on methane but to reduce methane concentrations and emissions around the world. So it's really a result and solutions based effort. Marcelo is here on the west coast because these philanthropic organizations came together and are planning how to implement that. So we'll hear a bit about the hub but I think today we'll hear more about Marcelo's personal and professional mission. Let me give you just a few examples of what he accomplished as the environment minister. This is on the website from his TED talk. Marcelo spearheaded multiple environmental initiatives such as taxes on new car sales and power generation based on local and global air pollution, first of their kinds around the world. He helped craft a landmark agreement to phase out coal power generation in Chile. He created 45,000 square kilometers of national parks protected 1.3 million square kilometers of ocean and instituted the first national plastic bag ban in the Americas. So that's suffice it to say he got a lot done while he was environment minister and he's going to get a lot done as CEO of the methane hub so take it away Marcelo. Thank you so much. Yes thank you so much for the opportunity to speak. This is like probably my second in-person engagement since the pandemic so bear with me. So it should be coming up. Can you do something here with the screen or should be up? Do the classic plug it in and unplug it. Make sure it works. There we go. Okay good. I guess I got to switch it out. Cool. Thanks. Well first off we're in the middle of a discussion about climate change but when I worked in the World Bank I really liked Nicholas Stearns, one of the first economists that led the World Bank on this issue saying that if we want to overcome global poverty, climate change and global poverty are both sides of the same coin they must be addressed together if we fail on one we'll fail on the other. It's really important that we take that message home it's not about the environment it's about poverty it's about human well-being and also we have a tall task in order. I assume you've seen the requirements for meeting net zero or keeping warming under 1.5 degree but since we it's mitigation that we've never ever done at the scale and I guess the pandemic sort of gave us the hope for the first time would be in the right direction but of course we came back to our old ways and there's a rebound effect and a lot of the new energy that was required in many places actually coal again unfortunately. The Paris Agreement requires countries to have net zero emissions by 2050 and things are changing because in 2019 things were pretty bleak and I like to say that always think of these things in a positive way you know if we looked at what everybody was committing to it was a total disaster of a future but you know it's four years ago things have changed substantially the US is back in leadership roles however you know with all its complications it's way different to have a country committed to climate mitigation without in comparison to another one that is not same we have commitments by China, by India, the EU and almost 100 countries that have committed to net zero emissions by 2050 and these are some slides that I stole from Druchendale to limit warming to 1.5 degrees we had to reduce emissions by 45% net global by 2030 and if we want to do 2 degrees it's a little bit later than if we want to limit warming to 1.5 degrees we have to reach net zero by 2050 and a little bit later if we want to do 2 degrees again and this is something and something that we should focus but my focus in my career has always been trying to find the multiple reasons why we should be doing the right thing and many times it's looking at non CO2 pollutants overall that provide immediate health benefits that allow the political space under which to support these things because when you're in a small country like China that accounts for 0.3% of global emissions there are people that say you know why are we doing this what's in it for us it's the US where it's China where somebody else's fault but then you provide a pathway of lower energy cost and cleaner air which also provides multiple health benefits and so what we need to do is something we've never done before and it's about multiple changes it's about you know I heard a great speaker talking about is there a sustainable shrimp yes there is is there an all you can eat sustainable shrimp restaurant no there is not because it's about being balanced about having what you require overall and to me the whole fight is very strong because it's my kids it's this decade and so somebody that got in first grader now by the time they're freshman in high school that's when we had to reduce emissions by half right so it's a very difficult task but the positive thing and I'm going to go into the some global analysis new climate economy Nick Stern and others showed that actually meeting the Paris Agreement goals mitigating climate change actually provides substantial economic benefits and some of the work I did in the World Bank was actually to provide evidence of adaptation today there's a new report working group two ITCC talks about how vulnerable we are and how we're losing that window under which we need to adapt to climate change good evidence to also have adaptation not be the poor child of sibling of whatever the mitigation but actually having new opportunities to look at these things so investing in a early warning system very cost effective making infrastructure resilient very cost effective climate smart agriculture that's adapted to climate change also even some things that we have to do much more looking at the benefits of nature-based solutions is something we do not have a full handle on but whenever we have looked at the information there are substantial benefits protecting coastal ecosystems particularly are very cost effective and having sustainable or resilient water resources systems but then 2020 pandemic hits we know how vulnerable we are to these zoonotic diseases as we've expanded and encroached where different species used to live and around three fourths of new diseases are zoonotic in origin it has to do with biodiversity loss so the world is in the middle of a new agreement that's going to be in China I think it's this year which is the conference for biodiversity the CBD cup and the commitment that they're trying to achieve is the global deal for nature which is protecting 30% of the oceans and lands by 2030 and the good thing about it is that achieving that protection according to Waldron and others from Cambridge actually has five times more benefits than cost so therefore also conserving land conserving oceans keeping places sacred from extraction is very important so I am very proud to have contributed to have my own country increase the protection from 8% to 36% which is a substantial increase and I love the fact that these things actually come to have results that are positive I went to grad school here in the US I heard about the Chilean sea bass becoming fat in style then in a decade 95% of all resources were depleted orange ruffy also came in style 70-year-old fish you know prehistoric and very difficult to reproduce it were totally over depleted and I did meet a fisherman recently Juan Fernando Pequipalaba one of the places that we protected and he told me with a lot of emotion that it's great to fish things that had not been fished for 20 years having different species that haven't seen in a while so nature does recover if we stay away from our constant temptation to kill the golden goose before letting the eggs just be given to us overall so my country has had that depletion but we have changed that two-thirds of the fisheries are overfished and we've changed that tendency so our emissions first thing I would like about this plot is that they're on the rise as all growing economies have but we have sinks right we have a Patagonian forest we have multiple native trees so yeah net zero is an option but Santiago was very polluted in 1990 and we were net zero then so net zero doesn't mean clean air right so we have to still be looking at a pathway that's also just meets other goals it's not only about not having total emissions and so what I like about the pathway that we have to choose in Chile is that we have a very clear path with no regrets. Option A Sussri put out a report last year showing that Chile will lose 8 to 27 percent of its GDP by 2048, pretty 50 I put in there if we don't address climate change but if we actually went for net zero we actually would have more growth which I think is really important and I'll tell you a little bit of why this is sort of a consensus because it's not doesn't happen a lot that the left wing and the right wing all have a consensus that net zero is our pathway. First off 2013 I remember I gave a talk here in Stanford and talked about the things that we needed to do with President Bachelis administration and a lot of things we did and we actually had unexpected results. We started what I do believe to be an energy revolution and we did it three ways. We put a price on pollution and you can see not many countries in the world have put a price on pollution and none of them actually have it to the level that you require to reflect the externalities that are associated to the emissions that we want to regulate. One of the things that I also did with Chile was something I hope will be picked up again which is the carbon pricing of the America's declaration under which Chile, Colombia, Peru, Costa Rica, Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington and Canada committed to have an integrated regional carbon price market. It hasn't picked up since I left but hopefully the new industry could pick that up. Another thing that happened was the power plant emissions standard. I want to give you this point because the first thing I said was climate related but the second thing is air pollution related and most people overlook when they see this only as a climate agenda they overlook these opportunities. I remember we did this regulation in 2009 and we showed that it had two times more benefits and costs and we were able to adopt the EU standard for emissions and even having something the US took a while to do which is forcing existing power plants to retrofit and meet that standard and that increased their capital costs at around 30% and changed the economics of power generation substantially. And so this picture I would get from people that would operate these plants. I was always the activist. I was always talking to the different community people and the guys would say we would shut off the power plant controls when there's no enforcement because obviously it takes up power when you have these controls and so what we did there was continuous monitoring of emissions. There's no lack of compliance. Then we put the carbon tax that's building on that capacity of continuous monitoring and so therefore it was great for me to when I visited the plants in 2017 and 2018 to come into the power plant and look at the guy trying to make sure two things occur. They look at the power output and how much carbon tax are paying and if they're meeting the emission standard and I think it's just great because since also the local air pollution portion of the tax is very substantial they actually went far beyond what was required by the emission standard because it was always cheaper to mitigate than to pay the tax which is much higher. One of the things that I liked about this whole approach including other stuff we did for air pollution which I haven't gotten into detail but essentially we did multiple air pollution control programs and the big newspaper went out to see probably wanted to look and see that we failed miserably at what we wanted but they figured out something I hadn't figured out they looked into emergency room visits for obstructive bronchial disease and it was actually reduced by 50% in many places that we had taken action and overall emergency room visits for kids between 0 and 14 years old were dropped around 30% so I have to say I'm very proud of this. This is probably the biggest goal that I've had because it's 500,000 cases. If any of you have ever taken your kid to emergency room because they can't breathe it's terrible and 500,000 cases prevented is something I'm very proud of. So combination. Market conditions for end transition increased capital costs for power generation increased operational costs for the green tax, energy oxygen reform and then this cold phase out just was natural and I'll show you why in terms of economics. First off this is like the lasard level as cost of energy. These things have been present in Chile probably six years ahead of the global analysis so let no one ever tell you that new energy from solar and wind is not only the cheapest source of energy but actually the cheapest source of energy mankind has ever had. This I think is great news and IEA projects that we will have around 95% of all new energy globally to be renewable by 2030 so that's a fact. But also increasingly it's cheaper to build new renewable operations than to continue to operate existing power plants. Third battery storage is coming down fast and it will be covering the path of these resistance I believe We will probably have a future under which landlines transmission lines are going to be hard to build out anywhere LA, California overall, the US and Chile too. The last big transmission line we had was the nightmare I permitted it with the Minister of Energy. We are going millimeter by millimeter trying to get it pushed through. I don't think ten years down the line it's going to be easier at all. And the next one is not going to go through a desert it's going to go through where people live and it's going to be a nightmare. So what I think is going to be a lot of battery storage overall. This is another analysis from Bloomberg Energy Finance showing that this is the case also in China, India and Germany in which building new solar and wind is actually cheaper than continuing to operate existing power plants. So with my colleague the Minister of Energy we would always talk about that we were dancing to this song but we hadn't put a name on it with no new coal, right? So essentially at the end of the government we announced this coal phase out agreement and basically based out of economics. Other cool thing that we need to do now President Bachelet who had been known in her first government to have increased coal production because of natural gas shortages from Argentina got to have this agreement to phase out coal and I'm very proud of having contributed to that. But there's other baseload energy that we have to address and support. So CSP you guys have some CSP here in California constituted solar power they run 24-7 and so we have our first one that came in at $130 per megawatt hour but the new ones are actually coming at $30 per megawatt hour. So that takes us to another stage. Battery storage already starting out many places in Chile. The big companies like NG and NL are already building the first ones and I am sure anywhere we have solar power today probably will be backed up with battery storage because it's a way to do it because we cannot continue this pathway of super ultra cheap solar energy at this time being supported by expensive night time diesel or other sources. This project which is funded by the Green Climate Fund I truly want to succeed. It's actually from Stanford alumni. It's called Valhalla Energy and Espejo de la Paca. It's about having super cheap solar be used to pump up ocean water into this lagoon and have night time sea salt hydro work. They say they could deliver this energy around $60 per megawatt hour if they can. We've solved a lot of the battery storage requirements. We've solved a lot of the other type of energy that we don't want. And so there are different people that are thinking about 100% renewable and for example if we phased out coal faster by 2025 for example we would require substantial amount of new installed capacity. So the way that I see it because many policy makers think investment and growth is a good thing. But when it comes to environment they think this is negative. Oh it's going to cost us so much. But really it's about job creation. It is about investment and I think that's going to work out fine if we are smart about the way that we do it. But we have to be strong about the policy orientations we need to give to the technocrats. Because many times the technocrats are stuck with their old ways. They listen to the incumbents more than new players. And the big success of the Chilean energy policy was stopping listening to the incumbents and actually listening to the renewable energy sector that has proven its potential. So I think it's about mobility. I'm going to talk to you about that a little bit too. It is a problem and I think in the US it's a big problem that you have not a truly open market to cheap technologies if necessary. So I have a friend who works at the Department of Transportation in Minnesota and he's saying how come how do you guys have so many electric buses in Santiago? I'm like because they're Chinese or 300,000 each. We pay a million each one, right? So of course if you want to pay a million dollars for electric bus the payback from a diesel bus will never occur. But the thing is in our case the operational costs are substantially cheaper. A fourth of the maintenance costs in the electricity etc. So essentially the electric bus pays itself off in three years if you're having a five-year contract then you're going with no brainer decision of going for electric buses to be 100% of your new fleet. So today we have 1500 electric buses and we probably could if we wanted to have 100% electric buses. The incoming Bodic administration who has very talented transport minister and the very talented environment minister proposed to have free transportation and it probably could be achieved easier with lower operational costs associated to electric ways of production and transportation. Now what's going on today though, we are at 24% renewable energy which is an astounding accomplishment considering the fact that we had no solar and wind in 2014 basically. So that's great. The bad thing though is that last year coal grew from 30 to 35% which is bad news and goes to show that the phase-out agreement that we did could have been a little bit tighter, could have been a little bit more stringent, some sticks could have been thrown too many carats because essentially the operation was the plants that were put in the plan were probably plants that never operated that much anyway. Just I'm going to go to the last portion of the presentation talking about why we could go to net zero faster because of course yeah, 2050 is fine but this is a little bit like don't look up. You want to shoot the comet just at the right thing but what happens if you miss if you miss you had one shot and then in 2040 I believe should be the date and I'll show you our NDC what it's about. Today I do respect the fact that in the middle of the pandemic somebody would commit to net zero. This is 2020, nobody had committed to net zero. You needed to show the momentum Chile was the president but developing country in the middle of a social unrest and crisis and the economic crisis that we didn't know how long it was going to last. So I do respect the fact that my successor Gernes Schmid and Juan Carlos Givert, the Minister of Energy did this commitment and so they they committed to peak emissions by 2025 do 45% reduction by 2030 and net zero by 2050 and the interesting thing is that while in 2020 that was the total amount of countries that had committed to net zero, I can't plot the new number. It's around 150 countries that have committed to net zero by now. And overall this carbon neutrality is the consensus industry thinks we should do net zero. The power sector says we should do net zero. All universities say we should do net zero and what it would mean it would be a big injection of investments and which will lead to increasing savings in the cheaper energy you would have for your homes overall. But then now in Chile we're having a discussion whether we should be applying to have this by 2050 or 2040. And so Congress invited me to look up the things that we could do. I'm not doing first hand research but I collected some information that nobody had really realized. The same study that we had done with the World Bank on the impact on GDP for net zero by 2050, well they had actually looked at what would happen if you did 2040. And their surprise is actually of course you would get more growth. The longer time you have with cheaper energy you get more growth and more investment. The first evidence, if we do net zero by 2040, more growth. Second, we've really overlooked probably the most important tool that we can have on mitigation. Carbon pricing leadership coalition and the high level panel for the World Bank put together with certain instiglitz said that we should be looking around 100 dollars per ton. And IMF, my good friends there I asked them to run some numbers for me and for example if we use 30 dollars per ton of CO2 which is the value that we're trying to promote, we have net, not net, absolute reductions of emissions for Chile by itself. And when you have requirements for more spending it's good to have more revenue. Christina Gargiva who was my boss at the World Bank who was the IMF head she said carbon prices are job creating taxes. They shift economies towards something else and so I think it's a good tool that we should try. And the World Bank IMF put together in the context of the coalition of finance ministers what different carbon prices would mean for Chile in terms of reductions and you could also see in the U.S. and I guess they didn't do U.S. because the U.S. wasn't part of the coalition in 2020, it is now but you can see different carbon prices leading to different reductions you know for example Poland could get almost 50% reduction with different prices of course it's going to be political hard to do. So we didn't consider carbon pricing as a tool at all and my criticism of the administration is that if you didn't consider carbon pricing which is the most promoted tool by the IMF and the World Bank, it was purely out of ideological reasons and so we had this discussion and we had said it was all technical but it wasn't totally technical. There's another aspect that's important for us too. The World Bank put out a report looking at what would happen if the whole world met their 2 degree commitments. Not 1.5 because for some reason they did 2 degrees and you can see that the transition for clean economy requires substantial amount of minerals. So this is something we have to discuss a little bit more because a lot of people are concerned that this might generate this new extractivism and will shift from having these oil based economy and having high impacts on places and probably heard about the concerns on Cobalt and Congo and Lithium and the indigenous communities in Chile overall. But the reality is for example for Chile which is our major commodity a lot of it will be required for these new technologies and on some in some double the copper is required for net zero globally. So then when we go back to the conversation I had with Finister Finance what's in it for us to do net zero? Yeah well we sell double our major commodity. Not a bad thing. It won't come at it won't be a free thing because this is an IDB report showing embodied emissions and so you can see all the different emissions in Latin America. So Trinidad de Vego for example major natural gas exporter a big portion of the emissions they export right and in the case of Mexico also fossil fuel producer it's a big portion but Chile we're not fossil fuel producer but actually we're pretty much up there with any of them and so because we transform these fossil fuels into our paper commodity copper. So that means that we should be wary of any taxes on end products and lo and behold the EU has announced and they're still going full steam ahead on a border tax adjustment based on the embodied emissions of a product that they will import so therefore if a copper is going to cheap to the European market there'll be a tax based on the emissions. So that makes us want to do this faster. Finally hydrogen we've all heard about it everybody thinks it's a really big promise this is not the blue hydrogen that Mark Jacobson was tweeting about today it's the green hydrogen made from renewable energy and our projection is since we have such cheap energy we could have around 160 megatons and we could be the cheapest and even even though we might be farther away than China, the US or this could probably overcompensate the fact and if we do deliver on everything we want on hydrogen we will be looking at $330 billion in investment for 300 gigawatts of energy which is 10 times the energy that Chile uses today so it can change things substantially and actually it could replace mining altogether. So my dream is you know we have mining we'll have an expiration date but the mining to be renewable in the sources could leave an outstanding legacy of hydrogen be produced. So what I've described is not something that would only be part of what a minister of environment should be concerned about. I just described what Nick Stern calls the growth story of the 21st century it's the transformation of our economies to a new climate economy. So I'm known for not getting along with ministers of finance but I decided I didn't want to have more fights and at the World Bank what we did was very much an inception of putting together around 20 ministers of finance got them in a room in Helsinki three years ago and we decided to do the Helsinki principles and that is an outstanding change and this guy here you might recognize him now but he knew who he was then and then the minister of finance for Germany the Vice Chancellor today, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and you saw today that Germany is committing to 100% renewable life 2035. So this is now here's the things that we have to be looking out for which are probably the biggest push that we could do. First off there is this network of greening the financial system that today accounts for global GDP including the central bank of China. They're all committing to having companies declare two things. Their economic consequences to their assets due to climate change, their physical risks, or their transitional risks due to regulations. Selling stuff that nobody wants to buy right? If you're a fossil fuel dependent country you're not going to be able to sell oil, oil, oil. If you are an oil company you should be shifting to something else and the pressure that could be used is substantial and massive and direct. BlackRock for example BlackRock tells the CEO of NL a big company you're not phasing out coal fast enough and I'm a witness to this. The result was NL and NG committed to phasing out all their coal-fired power plants by 2025 in Chile that was financial pressure. The pension fund system also, the IDB put out a report that showed that the pension funds would have been way more profitable and somewhat more profitable than green pension funds than not. So now the Chilean financial regulator for banks, for pensions, for companies they all require financial disclosures and the stranglehold will start, first you declare that's a plan, then is it aligned to the payers agreement is it aligned to our net zero and if it's not then it has to be aligned or you pay a penalty for this. So the Glasgow financial alliance of net zero probably is the most outstanding result for the Glasgow meeting. If you look at what they're committing to and I know there's a lot of greenwashing, we got to get better right? The first thing is we get them in, then we start becoming the methods overall to be increasingly stringent but today the reality is that major banks have committed to 130 trillion in climate finance by 2050 and that's never been heard of before. The climate finance today is probably maybe from banks, probably MDBs, no more than 70 billion a year so 130 trillion is a big departure. So why can we aspire to net zero by 2040? First off, we have to use carbon price. Second, we have to phase out coal faster. Third, we have to understand that we're always wrong about these numbers. We've projected solar PV to cost $15 per megawatt hour by 2030. Turns out last year it came in at 40, at 14, cheaper. 10 years ahead of schedule almost. CSP same thing. 35 by 2030 well now is 33 last year. So I think we have to be more nimble about the analytics we do because many times it's set up in old school mentalities. We haven't analyzed a 100% renewable target. We haven't analyzed the GDP, in fact the double copper demand. We haven't looked at what the green hydrogen will do for us. I mean we haven't looked at the fact that we plan to sell our emissions, right? So maybe some of that could be used to reduce our emissions faster. That's the end of that part. Briefly on the methane hub. Methane hub, as Rob said, is the coordinated effort by philanthropies to address the methane agenda. And I'll just tell you why it's important at this point. Today the report for the IPCC showed that if we overcome 1.5 degrees there'll be tipping points and effects that will be irreversible. So we have to make sure that we're not going to exceed that. It doesn't matter if we exceed it and then cool off. No. We need to never exceed 1.5 degrees. And so if we look at recent warming there's been a substantial contribution from methane, from the short-lived pollutants. And we've been looking at these things with some bias against taking short-term action. When we look at methane it's in a 100-year outlook. It's around 25 to 28 times more potent. That's why we reduce methane historically. But if we look at this scale, the scale in which we all plan to live it's actually 86 times more potent. So whatever we do on methane is going to be able to deliver gains now in 100 years or 200 years. So very important. Where is it coming from? It forces us to get into sectors we had forgotten. Waste sector, ag sector, fossil fuel. And again we could have these direct benefits to whoever mitigates. That's another good thing. So we're supporting this based out of the methane pledge. The global methane pledge was 110 country effort long-term in which dozens of world leaders supported and it's led by the U.S. And the objective is to reduce emissions of methane in the short-term. And if we do so, we could actually reduce temperature within our lifetimes. And most of the measures we could do are actually very cost beneficial. And finally we'll do what we needed to have been doing is having a food system that's good for people and the planet. And today it's neither, right? 30% overweight population globally, 10% malnourished population and with all the pollution problems we've seen. So we're doing things like for example working with different satellite observations and there's different researchers at Stanford that are supporting this to measure and look at the real leaks and we're figuring out that landfills were actually way more than we expected, wells and pipelines were way more and so we'll be doing all this work out of Santiago and looking at different sectors that we could address. And so finally I just wanted to say that zero is both a technical challenge but also a political decision and I do like the fact that Aymary Levin says, you know, our energy future is our choice not fate. And I think these things are things that we have to have in mind. We cannot rely on the technocrats which I am part of to say the reasons why you can't do something yet the political leadership is we will achieve this and we'll figure out how to do it and a lot of these things are happening today in California, you know, which they don't know exactly how you're going to reduce methane emissions but we'll work together on it and we know we have to do it. I think Christina Figueiras who is a former UN head for climate change would say, you know, when you get on a cab, you don't tell it go this way, this way, this way, you tell it I want to go there. And the cab driver figures it out but you have to tell it where you want to go. I think if we are only going to where our minds set us out, we're just not going to get to the testifications we require. We have to be bold and therefore the C40 is what my personal commitment is that Chile could achieve in a zero. So that's my presentation. Thank you very much for your time. I did. We have a few minutes now for public questions in the room here. I thought after that inspirational talk. Can you hear me? Yeah. Any questions in the room? If nobody raises their hand I'm going to call in my colleague Rob Jackson who I'm sure has questions. Let's go up there. So you brought up this taxi analogy. How often is it that in the Chilean government people are disagreeing where to go? Is there a lot of infighting or is it really that well consensus? The process is about discussion. For example, for the energy system transition, 2013, the whole country was at odds with we want to do large hydro in the Patagonia, to do big coal, but we really didn't have a consensus. So one of the big things that the Minister of Energy did was he did a national consultation process under which everybody discussed and looked at the same numbers and they came to that consensus. There's some different views on the velocity. And obviously we're in the middle constitutional process that shows that we're not good at reaching agreement, but we should do so. But as long as there's a place for discussion with evidence that's probably the best place to work on it. So basically the net zero target that Chile has today was a national public participation process and we have the consensus of the NGOs, the people, and the sectors in the government. So it's not perfect, but as long as we have those spaces to have the discussion I think it's the best following. Thank you, Anthony. I know you're... Sorry, let's do this. You talked about in your speech a little bit about the carbon cooperation with Chile and Oregon and California and I was wondering if you could elaborate more on like policies and initiatives in which like a smaller country like Chile has a larger global polluter aside from like the really well known local conferences. So there's a Japanese clean development mechanism. The Japanese have like their own carbon market and they subsidize mitigation and some actions have been taken in that regard. The recent cooperation with the Canadian government on organic waste was also very substantive. There's multiple different carbon finance initiatives that allow that bilateral collaboration. The forced investment program for example with Reforestation and MRV systems to prove that you planted the trees that you wanted and the mitigation that occurred was okay. These are things that have occurred but I don't have a much longer list. The problem though with the carbon market of the Americas is that Chile now that they have this big commitment they're not really too keen on selling credits because they would be taking off their books and so I have seen that sort of awareness that I think is really interesting because you know for example New Zealand came in and they wanted to say hey you know I'll give you money to phase out coal faster and they're like yeah great but we're not sure we're going to meet our commitment if we do that because that's going to be taking off our books. It's one of the little hanging fruits that we want. So therefore it's going to the tension of having everybody committed at zero is that there won't be that much of international mitigation because everybody has to mitigate a lot. Any other questions? I think you just gave me an opportunity to use my kind of pop metaphor. You remind me of the other member of the old saying do or not do or try. I think you're exactly that kind of guy and that's what we need. Anybody else? Rob you want to ask one? Yeah sure so maybe philosophically can you talk about your own philosophy in the methane hub the balance of shame and cooperation for driving action. And I'll give you one example of which we did that was a little bit crazy and I don't know how I kept my job but it was fun and stressful. In the middle of the when Chile became better at soccer they started making it deeper into the tournaments and we started measuring at the same time more pollution with better instruments and so we had the perfect storm of when I go into office all of a sudden we obliterated all our air quality standards and records for you know we never measured anything as bad as we measured and I try to figure out what it was and I had been looking at that data and I knew that data like it was my kids right I knew anything that was weird I would figure out right away. There's something weird that happened that night the time etc everybody grilled right everybody grilled and it was just and every single day that's the Chile played in the winter time it was an emergency day and if our model predicted it was going to be sort of bad air day when we factored in the soccer game we said now this is going to be horrible and it has implications because you ban wood burning stoves you stop industry and you can't drive your car right so it has deep implications and so we went at that right and we showed that there was a problem people made fun of us at the beginning had memes about us and you know that were crazy blaming it on the pollution on grills but then the data came in and actually the surveys came in around 80% of Chileans acknowledge that grilling is bad and 60% of women and 40% of men are in favor of banning grilling during bad air days so if there's no problem there's no support right so this same thing with the shaming this will be shaming both on an individual level and to country level but if we have to show the big problem that we got at hand and we have multiple tools that including your work Rob that will allow you to have that. Well that said I think we're just about time for the public part of our celebration so thank you once again for sharing with us your story I think it's a very important model for what might well be going hopefully going on in other jurisdictions and thank you so much. We're following the California way we'd like to think of ourselves as a California of Latin America. Come back again often we'll take you out and hopefully next time you get here thank you. Thanks so much.