 So I'm interested, so how, because it was in 2001, I think that the, that your stat published their economy wide MFA. And this was, of course, partly done thanks to your work and the work of your team. So I'm wondering what was the discussion, how did you manage to convince you to use that to have a, because they already had, I guess, a state of the environment reports and environmental reporting but having a systemic accounting. So how, how, what were the discussions back in the day about this. It was very similar like in Austria I mean they were also suffering from these thousands of efflents and emissions and and waste. Yeah, and they could not come to grips with it it was a miserable statistics every country did it differently. So the discussions were not clear the amounts the measure that even the measurement units were not it was terrible. Yeah, so they were very happy to, to see sort of light at the horizon that maybe there could be a quantification that is more consistent and logical and can build on economic statistics and on, on what's there. Yeah, and not invent a completely new system of of recordings. So it was quite easy for the economy stay understood that this was something that I mean they're of course only wanted it money and not in towns. Yeah, or in June. Yeah, never mind, but it was, it was something that communicated well between the disciplines. And with the, and with the officers who had to deal with the, with the existing statistics and suffered from them. Yeah. So you, you kind of went to them or your team or your colleagues propose that to them and they, because they didn't take a lot of time to put this into practice and kind of curious how, you know, a scientific discipline can really get in in policy and really influence it. It's, it's a lot by chance. I mean, the, the World Resources Institute picked up the idea, did that big report, the Austrian Ministry of Environment was very proud of this new report or this new approach, and they went to the EU and told them what interesting things they had. The Austrian environmental agency was not so happy because it liked its thousands of indicators, but, but still they saw that they could find a way of aggregating their stuff in a reasonable form. So it, it was not against much resistance. It was, some didn't understand it or, or yeah, but it, it went smoothly, as far as I remember. I mean, it took about, I mean, we did these big international conferences with the Wuppertal Institute and Leiden and and then Statistics Sweden, and then the Japanese came in who had this very early program on reduced reuse recycle. So this was already a pretty strong international bundle of both scientists and also some policymakers. Yeah, it went smoothly. So that, that was the con accounts conferences in the 90s. The con accounts conferences, right. Yeah. Okay. And then the Japanese invited me. And yeah, so this spread from there it spread. Yeah, the only who, the only country who did not jump on that train was interestingly US. Yeah. Yeah, the US is the only country and also although the World Resources Institute strongly supported this and also other institutions in the US on the, on the science reporting level, but in policy. No, I think the US sinks in money and nothing. No other unit has a chance. Yeah, although their input output analysis tables are major compared to some European countries so I think they're they're very good in accounting but they are in money. Yeah, all in money. Yeah. And now also the multi regional input output tables that are in mass or in energy units. Yeah. Americans don't really participate in this. They don't understand the value of it. But it's like with the with the quality of life. I mean, in the my first OECD experience.