 All right, so we're going to get going. Good afternoon, everyone. Hi, my name is Evan Michelson. I am a program director overseeing the Energy Environment Program at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, which is based in New York City. And I'm really pleased and excited to moderate this panel and looking forward to the conversation that we're about to have among the four panelists here, everyone here in person and everyone online around emerging challenges and opportunities. This is a truly big, exciting, and forward-looking topic, one that involves bringing together insights from different perspectives and cutting-edge social and technological innovations. As we've heard over the course of the past two days, technology and society are both changing rapidly and incorporating new discoveries and ways of understanding into the climate solution space can pave the way for innovative mitigation and adaptation solutions that we're all interested in seeing realized. So in this session, we are going to be exploring a variety of new ideas and interventions and discuss their potential and their associated challenges. And there really is no group-better position to provide us with these insights in the panel assembled here today. I'm really excited about this, and we're all in for a treat. So I'm going to start by introducing each panelist. We have Angel Su, professor at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill and director of the data-driven Enviro Lab. Next, we have Kathy Wotecki, professor at Iowa State University and formerly chief scientist and undersecretary for research, education, and economics at USDA. We have Mike Vandenberg, professor at Vanderbilt University and director of the Climate Change Research Network. And at the end, we have Marcus Extever, chief climate solutions officer at Time CO2. So similar to the panels that we've had over the course of the conference, each of our speakers will offer brief opening remarks to help get us started. Then we'll have a conversation among ourselves, followed by substantial time for Q&A with the audience, both in person and online. Again, for all of you that are tuning in virtually, we encourage you to submit questions in the Slido box below the live stream at any point in the session, and we will have National Academy staff help to feed those questions into the discussion here. So why don't we get started? So Angel, I'm going to turn to you first. As someone that's worked at the intersection of data innovation and public policy, and you've also been involved in preparing the IPCC report, can you share with us a little bit about your work, and especially how new data tools are enabling larger groups of actors to collaborate on climate solutions? Well, thanks so much, Evan, for that question, and thanks so much to the National Academy for inviting me here today. And I just want to say congratulations on the Climate Crossroads program. It's been an invigorating last two days, and I've been so inspired by the diversity of voices and perspectives. And as an academic, we are siloed, and I think many people brought up that point in the course of the two days. And so it's really nice to be able to step outside and to reach across disciplines, because I think that's absolutely what's needed in order to tackle a super wicked problem like climate change. So I just want to commend the academies for having this conversation and for being included. I've also, in the course of the two days, have been really encouraged by the conversation for the need to engage private sector actors. And so particularly, I think you have the coolest title out of anyone, the Chief Climate Solutions Officer. I think that's amazing. Because we do need to engage the private sector in a really meaningful way, as well as local solutions. So everyone's been talking about the need to co-design, co-produce local solutions. And this is exactly where my research lies. And so for the IPCC, the latest assessment report, I contributed to Working Group 3 on mitigation solutions. And it was the first time we were able to establish this evidence base for what businesses can do, what subnational governments can contribute, what individuals, financial institutions, and helping. And this is what Mike refers to as the private mitigation wedge. And I know you're going to talk more about that, because that's a huge question in terms of if we think about the emissions gap and all of the action, the implementation, ambition, gaps left by national governments, how can we really bridge that? And so my research has really been trying to understand and develop data and new models for quantifying those contributions in a way that resonates with scientists and policymakers. And so it was really encouraging that in several of the chapters, Chapter 4, Chapter 5 on demand, and I know Mike is going to talk about the behavioral wedge, and also 8 and 13, we were able to actually quantify this contribution and the ability of new actors to bridge this space. And so what we found was really encouraging. Right now, if you go to the UN Global Climate Action Portal, this is the UN's own showcasing of what all these businesses and subnational actors are doing. There's something like 15,000 private businesses, more than 1,600 investors, now close to 12,000 subnational governments that are pledging their own voluntary emission reduction targets, often exceeding that of national governments. And they're providing financing, capacity building, knowledge diffusion. And in many times, they can experiment with riskier policies that are much more tricky to implement at the national scale. So carbon pricing, emissions trading. And so it represents a huge, growing movement and huge potential to help us seek new opportunities for breaking the impasses that we often see stalemating national governments and really making substantial, ambitious progress on climate action. And so you asked about data. And that's also, I think, a new possibility that I'm hoping we can dive into, particularly in the course of this conversation. That has allowed us to be able to actually quantify and contribute to this evidence base of what these different actors are doing and the size of this private mitigation wedge. And so what we've been doing is convening scientists and policy makers, practitioners, and a lot of the actor networks themselves. So there are networks of businesses that are pledging climate action and transnational networks of cities that are working together to tackle climate change. So we've collected data on what all these different actors are doing and develop new models using the same IPCC scenarios that are measuring current efforts of national governments and what we found is that just the tip of the iceberg. So looking at the 10 largest emitting economies, if we look at 6,000 private actors on top of around, sorry, 6,000 subnational governments, 2,000 companies, that can lead to an additional one to two gigatons in 2030 on top of what national governments have pledged. And that may not sound like a lot. It's only about 4% of global total emissions or Japan and Canada's annual emissions. But that's really, I think, just gives a slice of the potential for, if we engage these other actors, if we bring them on board, if they're part of the conversation, what we can achieve by way of this private or even non-state actor mitigation which. So I think that's really encouraging. But I will caveat that this is like the best case scenario. And we've been hearing a lot about deep, deep carbonization pathways and scenarios and modeling. And I will say when we did the modeling, it was the best case scenario. If all of these private businesses are not greenwashing, they're not just saying that they're gonna do something and decarbonize, but then actually following through. And there's no kickbacks or no reversal of climate action or negative, these negative interactions that happen. That's what we're modeling. But I think in reality, and this is in my many conversations in the course of the two days, what I think this initiative can really help us to better achieve is to apply a social science lens onto those pathways and to this implementation potential to say, okay, well, we need to ask the hard questions of what if you do have negative interactions? What if you do have entrenched fossil fuel interests that can work and counteract some of that great intention and potential set by private businesses? And so that's what I would encourage the climate crossroads to do is to really think hard about how we can start to apply the social science lens to understand under what conditions are we actually gonna realize these potentials? How can subnational and non-state actors cooperate, collaborate with national governments and productive ways to even go beyond what the models are currently showing? And so I think that's what I would encourage here and we can use new data. And I'm happy to talk about that in a little bit to actually measure and to be able to evaluate those contributions in a new way. So I think that's the potential here is with the Academy being able to convene and bring together diverse groups of stakeholders and people who can ask and interrogate these models and these data sets. I think that's what's really needed. That's great, thank you. So Kathy, you have extensive background and cuts across many of the solution spaces and topic areas that were outlined in the session discussion. Agriculture, biomanufacturing, especially work on health and the intersection with climate change. Can you give us a sense of the feasibility of some of these interventions and some of the more promising pathways forward? Sure, I'd be happy to. And like Angel, I share her excitement about the potential for this climate crossroads initiative and I'm happy to talk to you a bit from my vantage point, which is largely couched in food agricultural systems and some of the challenges and opportunities that they present to us. So when we think about these agricultural systems, they're huge. They encompass crop lands and range lands, freshwater and saltwater aquaculture, the confined animal feeding operations that are used in the developed countries for swine and poultry production, increasingly marginal lands that are being brought into production for food purposes as well as for the production of industrial feedstocks, agroforestry, the combination of crop lands along with trees and forestry itself. So it's an incredibly wide array of ecosystems. And these systems are producing so many things that are essential for human populations. Food, feed for our animals, fiber, cotton, flax for clothing purposes, fuel, and again those industrial feedstocks for the emerging bio-economy and circular economy. So these systems are also major contributors of global greenhouse gases and contributing about a third of greenhouse gas emissions. And they're within those four value chains that are responsible for two thirds of the greenhouse gas production, the beef, milk, rice, and maize. And if you add in wheat and swine and poultry, these seven value chains are accounting for about 80% of emissions. So it makes sense to concentrate our efforts on these major emitters of greenhouse gases. Second point that I'd like to make is that changes to agricultural systems and consumers' food behaviors can make really major contributions to carbon sequestration and also to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It's clear that if we're gonna meet those Paris Agreement goals of limiting temperature increase to one and a half degrees above the pre-industrial levels that we really need to make major changes in these agricultural production systems as well as in food processing and again in consumer behavior. And there are several analyses that have demonstrated that attaining net zero emissions in global food systems can be achieved and they can be achieved by mid-century but it means that a number of actions, many, many different actions across all of these diverse sectors the economy need to be undertaken. Implementation of low emissions interventions that also improve the efficiency of production in these key sectors like beef and rice and milk. Promotion of carbon sequestration through agroforestry as well as applying biocharter soils and improving crop and pasture management. We were talking about that in one of the sessions, breakout sessions right before lunch. Reducing people's livestock-based protein consumption as well as while doing that, shifting to more plant-based protein sources. And there are many different models. It doesn't have to be synthetically derived protein. It can be from vegetable sources and many traditional diets are good examples of plant-based high protein diets. Enhancing the energy efficiency for storing and processing food, transporting it, packaging and retailing and deploying new technologies things like methane capture, livestock feed additives to reduce their methane emissions. New breeds of livestock that will be more efficient in their feed transformations as well as again, building the circular economy in which we're moving off of petroleum and using more feedstocks from renewable sources. But in doing all of that, we also need to remember that a health-promoting diet, so if we're interested in the health of the population as well as the health of the environment, it's built on more than these seven major commodities. Lots of fruits and vegetables have to be incorporated into that diet. Another point is that society is really making huge demands on agricultural systems to meet our consumer demand for food and fiber and the economy. And these are essentially that we need to be producing more of all of these agricultural products with less inputs, less land, less water, less fertilizer, less chemicals. A second demand is that we need to be producing more while farmers are having to respond to climate change that is producing much more unpredictable weather patterns and leading to long-term droughts in some areas, so decreasing and making much more uncertain their livelihoods. And then also these systems, we look to create recreational opportunities. It's nice to be outside and enjoy being in a beautiful environment. So I just wanted to highlight two gaps briefly and then some opportunities that I see that are both challenges and within them then opportunities. One of the gaps is in global agricultural productivity. The gains that we need in agricultural productivity to meet all of those demands that we're putting on the system. And then the second is the gap in mitigation, strategy, implementation. We know what some of those pathways are. We're just slow in adopting them. So I'm gonna weave in some opportunities to address both of these gaps. Each October at the World Food Prize event, there is a report that's produced by a group that's now at Virginia Tech that provides an update that's called the GAP report. But in this case, GAP doesn't mean the gap that we think of, but it means the Global Agricultural Productivity Report. But it's also a GAP report because last year's report showed that the Global Agricultural Productivity Growth recently that we've been having has been in a steep decline. And Dr. McNaught referred to that yesterday in her opening comments. If we're to achieve the sustainable agricultural production to produce that food, and all of those are the things that we're asking of agricultural systems by mid-century, we need to keep increasing agricultural productivity growth by 1.7% annually. And over this past decade from 2011 to 2020, global agricultural productivity grew at an average of only 1.1%. And that's in comparison to the decade from 2000 to 2010 when agricultural productivity growth was increasing at 1.99%, so almost 2% per year. So there is a gap. We're following off the trajectory that we need to be on in order to produce all of this to meet our food and fiber and other commodity needs. So the second gap is, again, that slow uptake in greenhouse gas mitigation strategies. And although the technology success, implementation, the uptake has been slow. So some of the positives are there are global leaders who are making commitments both in the public and the private sectors. And some examples of that are the globally methane pledge, the UN forum on sustainability standards, and the science-based targets initiative. We're also seeing big advances in the biomanufacturing sphere. And I've mentioned the plant-based and cell-cultured means that are currently darlings but the venture capital sector, but the promise of them still remains to be fully achieved, cost is too high compared to the natural alternatives. And we've also had in the US the passage of a couple of laws that have resulted in a big infusion of funds with the IRA with 19.5 billion going to USDA for climate smart agriculture programs and the Chips and Science Act providing authorization, although not fully appropriated, for funding for scale-up on biomanufacturing facilities for the developmental stage of those as well as further research. So just briefly some barriers and opportunities, the cost of implementation, the institutional and technical capacity and lack of farmer education globally that's analogous to the kind of extension program we have here in the US. The need for governance, finance, research and technical assistance is especially in low and middle income countries. You're gonna talk more about finance, I hope, public and private sources of capital. Consumer behavior as far as the adoption changes to diets that we know are needed both for the climate as well as for their long-term health, the reduction of waste within household use of foods and more broadly within the system and also acceptability of new products that are the result of genetic engineering and CRISPR technologies. And lastly, I wanted to end once again and just reinforcing how diverse these agricultural ecosystems are, the numbers of players that are involved in the US alone, two million farmers that we're asking to adopt major changes in the way that they're producing food, as well as the educational levels and the whole social and governmental situations in which these farming systems are. So huge challenges, all of them represent opportunities. That's really interesting. For someone who doesn't know a whole lot about food and agriculture, that was sort of a master class in diagnosing the problem and outlining the solutions. I'm gonna pick up on one thread there as we turn to Mike as around this question of behavioral interventions, both sort of on the individual side and potentially also on the private sector side. So many of the kinds of interventions of the type that Kathy laid out and that Angel talked about require a high degree of behavior change. How do we get there? What are the barriers to achieving that and what are the opportunities to being successful in that? Fantastic, I have seven minutes so I can solve all that right here, we're good. I also wanna just share my co-panelist's view that this Crossroads program and the whole initiative is really exciting and incredibly necessary. And I hope it will ultimately translate an agenda for both a behavioral wedge and a private sector or private mitigation wedge along with a lot of other things. I think there's a real opportunity for it to do so. I do have to say, and maybe I'm directing this as much to Amanda as I am to Evan that there's a real flaw here. And I don't know if you all realize, but I'm a lawyer and we're in D.C. And I may be the only lawyer on the panel, right? And have there been other lawyers on the panel? I don't know, like this is D.C. There need to be lots of lawyers everywhere. So I'll do my best. I'll do my design. Okay, but yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. I'll do my best. But I work mostly with social behavioral scientists because I see the limits of law myself and I do think that the experience we've had with the behavioral wedge, which I'll focus on here and hopefully in the questions we can get to the private sector wedge a little bit more. But the experience does have lessons for how we can build out all these programs. And I think of the quotation from Churchill from a long time ago that the United States will always do the right thing after trying every other alternative first, right? And we've done that on individual behavior or the behavioral wedge. In 2009, a group of us led by Tom Dietz and Paul Stern published a paper in PNAS proposing a behavioral wedge. And we looked at 17 action types. We identified emissions reductions that, based on behaviors that had high technical potential, high behavioral plasticity and very feasible interventions. And those emissions reductions would equal the total carbon emissions of France just from the private, from the household sector. And I was still naive, even though I was old even back then to think, oh, all of a sudden we're gonna go pursue those. And I think what we've seen instead is some real barriers. And I wanna explore those a little bit if I may. But I also wanna say that I think we're getting there now. We have a paper out for review right now which suggests that a roughly 12% of the money in the Inflation Reduction Act will produce between 17, it is related to household behavior, EV uptake, heat pumps, weatherization, and it will produce something in the range of 17 to 40% of the emissions reduction. So Congress is betting on household behavior in effect or individual behavior. So barriers, things that we need to get over. And I think these are useful for thinking about a behavioral wedge agenda, but also for other things that we might be missing out there. One of them is just our mental models. Those of us in the policy world like to think of ourselves as being sophisticated interdisciplinary thinkers, but we are in ruts, in models. And I think in the Q and A we're gonna get into that a little bit more. I'm on the board on environmental change in society and one of the engineers on our board described it as design and defend and we've heard that as well. But we don't just do that in engineering, we do that with policy design as well. We have a certain image of it and then we defend against other types of alternatives. And I think we need to get beyond that really quickly. And the behavioral wedge is one of those where we need to be open to the idea that the regulated target is not just industry or even government, it can be individuals as well. And I don't mean necessarily regulated in terms of coercion. So first barrier in my view is mental model. Second one is does household behavior matter or not? If you look at the House Commerce Committee report that came out right before Waxman Markey went down, what you find is that the residential sector as it's called there was 5% of the US total. When you see 5% you think, well, why would we focus on that? Well, how did they get to 5%? And this is the dominant way to think about this sector by the way, it still hasn't changed. Well, the only way to get there is by excluding all household electricity use and all household transportation. If you include those in, then it makes up about a third of US carbon emissions and that one third is bigger than all the sources and all the countries in South America. So is it worth pursuing now? Yeah, I think it is. But it starts with that conceptual flaw, thinking of it as just the residential sector and then asking it narrowly. The second one is, is individual behavior just consumer behavior? And I would say consumer behavior is very important but it's a lot more than consumer behavior. We are all employees. We're users as well as buyers of things as well. We are investors in some cases. We are participants in civic and religious in other groups. And so we play many different roles and all those roles play a very, very big role. Another is can we scale up interventions? Can we go from the little one off things to things that really matter? And from my perspective, the key there is to be incredibly rigorous. This is another place where the national academies can really play our role. What do we know about the technical potential of all the possible household behaviors you could take? What do we know about the plasticity of those behaviors? So carpooling is a great thing if you can do it, reduces your emissions by half for every one person you get in the car. How many of you carpooled here today? This is an unusual audience. I saw two hands in the audience. So there's high technical potential, low behavioral plasticity if we need to think. And the third one, which is growing in importance and I think Angel's group with the IPCC has contributed to this. I've done this, David Victor and others have done this. We need to think more and more about what we mean about the feasibility of initiatives when we adopt them. And it's not just political feasibility because sometimes these are done by the private sector, sometimes politics. So we need to think about scaling up initiatives and we need to use those three criteria as we do that. Another objection that I sometimes hear is, oh, we shouldn't focus on individuals because we will undermine support for focusing on other targets. And you can do that. If you shame someone into acting, they will engage in guilt alleviation. They'll get moral licensing and then they'll do less of a second behavior. So you might get them to do the first behavior but you reduce their support for the second behavior. I've done work with Elko Weber and a variety of other people, Christian Nielsen. And what we have found is that there are lots of different ways to actually increase people's support for other initiatives, not just decrease them. And an example of that would be if you connect a behavior to someone's identity, then you have given them the empowerment and effect intellectually or psychologically to help them go do the next thing. Another that I hear a lot is, will behavior wedge initiatives be just or fair or equitable? And again, if I think about the distribution of energy burdens, the highest percentage of energy use among someone's income tends to occur at the lower end of the income scale. And so if you really want to provide a more equitable future, one of the ways to do that is help people be more efficient on a household level. And so there are ways to deal with the justice or equity questions. Another which is increasingly important, I do a lot of work on political polarization and climate change. And one of the things we need to worry about is will this be too intrusive? Will it be too coercive on some level? And one of the things I like about behavioral wedge interventions is that they're often based on information default settings and other subsidies, other ways in which we are not coercing behavior in some basic way. And so I think if the alternative is more direct regulation versus behavioral wedge interventions, often the behavioral wedge ones are the ones that are least coercive, least likely to impinge on liberty or justice. So with all of that, those are examples of the barriers. We are opting as a country to move in the direction of focusing on households. And I think that the National Academies has an opportunity to make sure that we do that at the same level of sophistication that we would have done with industry when I was at EPA many years ago. So Marcus, you have a lot of experience thinking about a variety of different cutting edge decarbonization technologies on one hand, but also the conditions that need to be in place to foster innovation. So I'm curious about your take on this issue, especially given some of the new areas of work that you're getting involved in personally and how you are thinking about approaching ways to overcome these gaps. Good thing, thank you. Pleasure to be here and pleasure to be with the panel. Hi everybody. Maybe what I'll do is unceremoniously spit out a laundry list of interesting technologies and share some ideas on how we might think about them in context, I think of this topic. And then I'll share a little bit about what I'm up to trying to use that information, which is essentially to take, to use the mic's language, to take the behavioral wedge and apply it to the private sector. We think about private sector actors as sometimes companies that we, meaning governments, tell what to do in the form of policy and regulation, and that is definitely important. But we think there are other ways to cajole or entice or invite private sector action that involve, yes, moral swasion, which sometimes means shouting at them, but also appealing to their interest and we all know what their interests are. Okay, technologies for a second. I'll just tell a quick personal anecdote. So I grew up in Canada and I studied engineering and this may not sound relevant, but I'm very proud to be wearing this ring because I wore it for years and I lost it and I recently just got a new one, like in the mail this week. The ring costs like 10 bucks, okay? It's made of iron. You can make it in 10 minutes. But as a young engineering student, they really conditioned us to not think of technology as some shiny trinket over the horizon, but to think of engineering as a calling and to emphasize the social responsibility that engineering bears. The ring is a reminder of a tragic accident from about 100 years ago, over 100 years ago, in which many people died because an engineer messed up. Not made a mistake, was sort of corrupted, actually. And you swear an oath in a secret ceremony. I'm not kidding. And then they give you the ring and you basically swear to do good and honest work because people are counting on you when you're an engineer. It's a very nice idea. I wear it as a memory of college, but also because that's sort of how I think about technology innovation. Yeah, it's cool and interesting, but it's for a reason and what better purpose than to think about climate and climate mitigation and adaptation. Two points. One, when it comes to technology and thinking about innovation and climate, we definitely know how to do this. Innovation sometimes sounds scary and expensive. Climate change is a huge problem. I don't think it's even the biggest problem facing our society. I think this is a very solvable problem. I think we'll be well on the down slope of solving this problem and we'll still be arguing about many of the other background issues that exist in our societies and around the world. That's my personal conviction, but for me, this is an optimistic bent. Another funny thing I like to think about with new technologies is that almost exclusively and universally, they all seem, at first, unproven, expensive, risky, and somewhat ridiculous. And if you look at the history of technology innovation in this part of the world over the last couple of centuries, sort of the modern era of technology innovation, they all seem this way. So it's a bit of a cautionary tale, like for instance, the metaverse was an idea that seemed to have come and gone very quickly. It hasn't gone away. The people that actually work on the metaverse today are saying, thank God the hype is over because now we can get some real work done without the spotlight on us. And I don't know where it's gonna pan out. Maybe it is ridiculous. I really don't know, but they all seem ridiculous at first. Some technologies that used to seem ridiculous, but are rife and right in front of us, include things like solar panels, wind turbines. These were mocked in previous generations. Now they're celebrated. I point these out because along with things like heat pumps, formerly known as air conditioning units, or things like grid modernization, these are bread and butter technology innovation issues that are right in front of us and will continue to require innovation. The solar panel invented 20 years ago is not the solar panel we wanna be using in 20 years. So even before we get to the whizbang stuff, there's a lot of stuff relative to continuous innovation and improvement, and this is really the domain of the private sector, which is why I bring it up. I'll touch on a couple of others. Kathy mentioned a lot of bioeconomy and circular economy related principles. Carbon markets came up. This is sort of starting to get a little bit more interesting and new, sorry, interesting because it's new in that sense. I spent the last several years becoming quite expert in the area of carbon removal and carbon capture, which is suddenly burst onto the scene, especially in this town, but in many others. It's still a tiny field, but it's grown rapidly as Evan and I were chatting a little bit before the panel. And then we get into the truly frontier and potentially scary or nuts or just maybe it won't ever work stuff like nuclear fusion, the joke in physics, as you know, the energy source of tomorrow and always will be. But there's a lot of money going in that direction. And geoengineering, blocking out the sun with a very thin shade of dust sprayed in the atmosphere. This might sound like the worst idea you've ever heard or maybe something worth considering. The frontier of discussion there is governance today. How should the international community consider the prospect of this idea? Should we get our act together before somebody just rushes out and does it? By the way, somebody has already done this. This happened several times. Maybe the last thing I'll say and I'll just close by articulating how I'm trying to use this information today. I'm working in an organization called TimeCO2. We're trying to build a business that helps other businesses take action on climate change and nature preservation. And it's built on some very simple hypotheses and we just got started, so we'll see if this works out. But I do have one request of the audience before I close. The premise is that the climate crisis is also a climate of trust. We're losing trust in our institutions, we're losing trust in our media. And even, you know, I don't need to tell you about sort of the nature of social media, but even the trust in facts and even scientists are starting to lose their privileged place on the trust hierarchy. The possible solution or a possible solution to a trust crisis is better and clearer communication. Where can you go for communication? The media industry, okay? So TimeCO2 is a startup made of climate science and business people like me who are excited to work with an established media company. The concept is, businesses are being yelled at in UN climate speak, which they don't understand. And they're being yelled at in science speak, which they also don't understand. Many of them just have their heads in the sand, private businesses around the world. Even those businesses that want to take action just don't know what we're talking about. And they lack practical examples and language that they can use. You may disagree or agree with this premise, but I'm just repeating some of the evidence that we hear from talking to business leaders. So we have set about to build a business that can translate that knowledge into practical actionable advice and tell the stories of other business leaders who have taken action and not killed their businesses in the process, which is every CEO sphere. And actually survived and maybe even thrived by leaning into what could be the future. So a couple of things we're doing right now and I have one that I'm gonna request your help on. We're convening business leaders around sessions like New York Climate Week, around COP. We might do something around Davos. We might do something more local to different industries. Just get small groups of business leaders together to try to speak in their own words and in their own language, what really needs to be done and help to form alliances that they might find productive to move the ball forward in their own industries. We have a very strong hypothesis that if we tell the stories of success in a way that business can understand and digest, that might pile in more business action. Time is a great publication to do that because it cuts across many aspects of our society and still has an iconic brand. So we're calling that the futures initiative. The pitch is basically the results of a change in climate mean that the way you do business in your company, in your industry is going to change. It's in your best interest to be at the forefront of writing the new type of business model for your industry, whatever it is. Would you like to come together and do that with some of your peers? And when framed that way, the answer is usually, well, okay, let's have another conversation because every business leader is terrified of being left behind by some kind of external event. I'll close here. Show of hands, if you've heard of something called the Time 100, okay. Somebody yell out, what is it? Tell me what it is. The audience participation. Go ahead. Maybe you just repeat that for those. It's a list, okay. With respect to time, it's a very fancy list of what they deem to be the 100 most influential people for that year. It's sort of capstone by time, person of the year. There are many events, convenings, discussions, communities formed around this list. And the list is super impressive. We are about to embark on a Time 100 style list of climate business leaders. The idea, let's see if this works, is that by telling the stories of successes by business people or business adjacent people, you don't have to work at a private company that have worked and basically not crushed the company and have achieved something relevant, maybe we can crowd in more action, let people know, listen, everyone can come in the pool, the water's warm. If you know anyone, think of the most badass person you can think of that might fit that description. I'm collecting nominations starting now. This is not a joke. Please call me or get in touch. We're gonna touch with one of us because we're actively trying to put this together for the first time and we hope to be in a position to publish this later of the year and let's see if it works. Thank you. Great, so we already have one request for the audience in terms of how to intervene and a very specific point here from Marcus. So the discussion has already gone in many directions and it's really interesting and exciting in a way that I had hoped for. There's so much to do, obviously, that one of the things and one of the risk is that potentially people or institutions or organizations could get sidetracked or perhaps go in the wrong direction. So actually, I wanna start with a question that might be a little bit unexpected, which is, are there wrong avenues to pursue in this way? Are there red herrings? Are there things that given the variety of Mosev intervention that we've heard about already that may actually hinder progress or thinking of this issue? So Mike, do you wanna start on that? Sure, I love answering wrong questions or floating them. I do think there are several that I see all the time in public discourse and in academic work and elsewhere and I just ring my hands when I think about the value, the hit that we take on the value of the discourse when we see these kinds of questions and the one I guess that most often comes up is, will this solve the problem? So we talk about food and we talk about households. I wrote a paper more than 10 years ago called the 1% problem, which is that almost any source of carbon emissions and almost any remedy can be framed if you get the denominator right as 1% or less and we tend to dismiss 1% problems. In law we have a concept called de minimis, de minimis non-curate lex. The law doesn't care it's a concern itself with little things and that's a problem. And so almost none of us are working on remedies that will solve the problem but the aggregation of all them will and what I keep seeing is really good ideas get shut down because they won't solve the problem. That'd be one, the second one I would just float and I'm sure others have other ideas would be just asking what can government do? And that's very common if you take any environmental law class, the whole class is asking what can government do to deal with climate change and environmental issues? But once you've only asked the question of the government being the actor you've just shut down everything we just heard about, right? What does government, are they directing it to do what you're doing? No, they're not doing that. Now that doesn't mean at all that government doesn't play an incredibly important role but just asking what government can do again shuts down the discourse in ways that eliminates really important avenues that we could pursue. Did anyone else wanna jump in on that in terms of avenues that may be less worthwhile to pursue? Well, anything that involves coercion I think is going to produce a negative reaction. And to the extent that in any of these climate related problems that we're trying to approach that we can make the right choice, the easy choice either for individuals or for corporations, that was gonna generate more uptake. I'd love to just build on that too. I've wrote down the 1% problem I'm gonna find this paper and read it. You and two other people who've already... The aviation industry, a target of much public scorn. Air travel accounts for between two and 3% of global carbon dioxide emissions or GHG equivalents. Many aviation executives that I've come in contact with are trying to avoid taking action by saying we're only two or 3%, basically look elsewhere. The climate science approach to counter argument is, well, actually the global warming potential of the emissions emitted at altitude means you're closer to 8% or 9% of the problem. But I think Mike's suggestion is a more powerful one which is to say it's not actually about the percentage. We're so far behind that just do something and it's better than nothing. The other thing I would add on a separate point is there's a lot of conversation about not just the right approach or the wrong approach, but we should work on these solutions, not those solutions, and kind of quibbling and what I think to the rest of the world looks like splitting hairs. I think this is probably counterproductive, maybe almost entirely, again, because it's letting the perfect be the enemy of the good in a way. Almost invariably something is better than nothing or it will at least produce some learnings that get us going faster. We just don't wanna be caught in the opposition where we're arguing to death what the optimal solution is and then we somehow begin trying to implement it only to realize maybe that's a waste of time, which we don't have. I totally resonate with everything that's being said here. I think Mike is absolutely right and Marcus and Kathy, it's an all society approach. I mean, it's an all hands on deck and the Paris Agreement was very firm about that. National governments cannot do it alone. It has to be in collaboration with the private sector with individuals and I think there's so much finger pointing and blame shifting and individuals saying, well, why should I reduce my own personal carbon footprint and reduce my travel, et cetera, et cetera when it's the fossil fuel companies and it's governments that are the lion's share of global emissions, but I think we're at a point now. I mean, I work with the data on a daily basis and I mean, if we look at North America, we've already exceeded the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold and we're seeing that many other panelists have talked about the wildfires in Canada about sea level rise, about increasing disasters and storms. We're already there and so now when I was at the latest climate, negotiations in COP 27 and Charmoucheck, the conversation amongst scientists and policymakers is really, how can we just shave off any incremental increase above 1.1 globally or just because I think it's no longer realistic that we're gonna actually achieve the 1.5. So it's really this moment of we all, it has to be from all facets, all angles. Everyone needs to do, yeah, the de minimis argument, yeah, I think is absolutely ludicrous. We all need to be doing whatever we can to contribute. And one of the values of the work that Angel's team does is that we know that people lock into things when they're quantified in a way they don't when they're not. And what your group has done that's so powerful is to say X billion tons are achievable. And you mentioned, what was the total that you mentioned that was equivalent to Japan roughly? Yeah, one to two gigatons. One to two gigatons, right? So that's bigger than something like 170 countries in the world. And so if you can quantify it and then frame it that way, now you can start mobilizing responses to it. It's a dive in that a little bit more. Angel, you said in your remark, you talked a little bit about the data revolution that's happening. And I'm curious to get your sense of how the ability to collect and analyze large data sets is helping make progress on climate information. Love that question. And actually I was going in your list of technologies Marcus, I was wondering, you left out AI. So I would love to hear your perspective on this because I think that that's one area that's under explored right now in this climate change space. And I was actually surprised that very few other panelists actually touched on AI because now I think what's been really great about the chat GPT revolution and revelation is that people actually can put a face to what AI artificial intelligence and machine learning is. Whereas before it was something abstract. It's a black box. It's under the hood. It's giving us advertisements on Facebook and telling us what to buy and secretly listening on our conversations on Alexa recommendations. But now actually it's given a face to what this means. And I think generative AI is one of these potential breakthrough technologies particularly for social science researchers like Mike and I to really I think parse through some of the noise and to be able to really understand. Like Marcus, when you were talking about communication and these interactions and the ability for business leaders to catalyze I was like, I want to measure that. But how do I measure that? How do I model that impact and what that means for us to be able to scale up as Mike said from an individual business to an all society effort. And how we can do that I think is through the vast amount of qualitative data that exists that we have so far not been able to efficiently analyze. And so I want to know what businesses are doing. What's effective? How can we distill those solutions? You talked about resilience. I mean, a lot of the work in ag and on resilience and adaptation is so hard to measure. I participated in some of those efforts to track adaptation. It is mind boggling hard because how can you compare one country's adaptive efforts into what resilience means? We don't even know what that means. And we can actually mine the internet thousands of documents of policy and discourse and scientific literature to then really understand what that means and to draw connections. So I see a huge potential for generative AI particularly in the social science angle to add a lot and help us to better understand connections where there are gaps, where there are opportunities and to measure in really new innovative ways what it means when you have this business coalition and you start to train them get them to tell these positive stories. How does that catalyze into these virtuous cycles and these ambition loops that the entire climate governance system in Paris is predicated on? So I'd love to hear Marcus. Are you guys thinking about generative AI? We are thinking about generative AI. If you ask CEOs what they're worried about AI is the top of the list at the moment. So it's a fear and not necessarily a fear. It's a fear. What does this mean for me? I don't quite get it. I mean, most people don't get it. I'm not an AI expert either. Why is chat GPT talking to me as a human? What does this possibly mean? Other people think it's sort of meaningless. They'll say, yeah, it's risky, it's expensive, it seems niche. It's not niche. I texted all my friends. My first one went on to chat GPT. I just started calling family members. I was like, look, I'm just telling you, I don't work for them or anything. Just sign up and just play with this thing. Something has happened in the world. I don't really know what, but something. I'm pretty sure. I'm extremely excited about it, even though I think we should approach with caution and realistically be prudent. I think some kind of regulation is coming. I couldn't even bat them really what regulation of AI means. In the context of business use cases that you brought up, I'm personally most excited, maybe similar to you about faster consumption of knowledge in the breakout session. We talked about, why is it that I've just heard now about this article that was published 30 years ago? Why do I know about this? Even though I love innovation, I hate starting from scratch. When I start a new project, I just wanna go to the latest of what's been achieved and then see if I can add something to that, just because I wanna go faster. I think the outcomes of a business action are fairly measurable. Revenue, greenhouse gases, supply chain efficiency. We know how to measure those things. The intermediate steps, the application of knowledge, decision-making pathways, I'm not sure those seem less measurable. For us, what we've said is, well, stories are a mechanism to capture this complex, difficult to measure decision-making process. In other words, hey, CFO, could you tell a short story about how your organization came to the decision? Yes, you read the IRA and the tax credits were available, but how specifically was it decided that you would spend $100 million to do a thing? Did you decide? Did somebody yell at you? Did the board decide? Was it shareholder pressure? Was it your suppliers? Was it your customers? How did it happen? And maybe building up a compendium of those stories. So I'm starting to get into the management literature and the business school literature, which is foreign to me, but I feel like there's knowledge there and we're trying to tap into it. One thing maybe I'll add, just as a moderate point of view, is that our program at the Sloan Foundation is funding a network of researchers that are looking at how climate change and energy are being impacted by advancements of the digital economy. And I think there's a substantial need for work in that area. But one thing that actually you just said, Mark has thrown up a question and Kathy maybe I'll ask this to you because what you were talking about is you wanna have lessons of success and examples of success. And I'm curious if anything comes to mind for you about examples of success that we can take comfort in or draw on or build on going forward given the range of challenges that you laid out. I'm curious if this kind of brings any bells in terms of how to proceed forward or what lessons we could learn from places where we've actually made progress in the past. Well, when Marcus mentioned the fear that executives have not having an example that something works, it immediately brought to mind the same fear that farmers have for if you asked me to adopt this new technology, how do I know I'm gonna be able to produce enough to feed my family or to bring in the income that I need. And it's demonstrations, being able to have practical demonstrations that people can see and identify with and give them the confidence to take those steps. So an example that comes from the agriculture world is cooperative extension. And the role that land grant universities have played in developing in agriculture and then in other areas of economic development within states demonstrations that if you do this, yes, you can make a return and it will yield in the case of climate change some additional benefits for you. So being able to replicate that model around the world in agriculture and there's a real lack of farmer education in many countries is one thing that's scalable. But then taking that into other areas as well and having at least a few examples and maybe building the libraries of them so that people can actually see, yeah, it works. I like that. And I've gotten that example from the behavioral wedge if you don't mind that I'd love to jump in with because it's a great example, not only of success and we tend to talk about failures too much. We tend to focus on what doesn't work and we've got to focus on successes as well. It's also a good example of public-private interactions. So the government sent light bulb standards and made them more stringent and LEDs at the time we wrote our behavioral wedge paper in 2009 were not widely adopted. They were very expensive and the light wasn't that attractive. And so I was the member of our research team that said, don't put that into the list of 17 action types that we evaluated. So we left it out and I have to admit defeat on that. That was a mistake because it turned out that one of the major retailers said to its suppliers if you can make us an attractive bulb for under $10 a bulb, we'll make it our house brand. And they did that and in the several years after 2009 LED uptake accelerated the US and Lucas Davis at Berkeley has done this analysis where he shows that that uptake of LEDs correlates beautifully with the first leveling off and then the downturn in household per capita electricity use in the US. And so did it cause it? We can never prove that but it's certainly a nice correlation there. And there's an example where something is trivial. It's a light bulb. You hear all the time, oh, don't worry about buying a new light bulb, right? It seems tiny. You aggregated across a lot of people. So Jonathan Gilligan and I have done some work and calculated that that equals about 130 million metric tons a year of carbon emissions reductions in the US. And I would just say go look for any regulation that's had a bigger impact than the uptake of LED light bulbs. Did I just share another example? This is quite similar. So totally different space, the construction, the built environment. Bees make their homes out of wax. Humans make our homes out of concrete. It's the number one material building material used on earth. And there's a company called Carbon Cure that developed a new recipe to make concrete and it uses recycled carbon dioxide, okay? So carbon nerds like me say, oh, wow, let's talk about the carbon reduction. Carbon Cure sells concrete not by talking about the carbon reduction because their customers, I can't speak with them but they don't care. What they care about is, is the concrete stronger? And is it better or cheaper? So they say, we have a better and cheaper product. Oh, and by the way, it also has dramatically lower emissions because they place some of the cement. Remember, the cement is like the powdery glue. Concrete is the rock product you can get at the end. It reminds me of the behavioral wedge, the light bulb example, meeting people where they are. Businesses don't really need climate change solutions. They need solutions to problems they already have that are climate related. I think that shifted thinking is productive. Right, so we've discussed a whole range of topics here from plant-based alternatives, big data, AI, fusion, low carbon concrete, cooperative extension agents, carbon dioxide removal. So hopefully that gives enough food for thought for everyone in the audience to think about questions as it certainly should. So I want folks to start thinking about questions both in person and online. I've got one more for the panel and then we'll turn to the audience and for everyone online, please remember to add your questions to the Slido queue so we can incorporate them into the discussion. So we're really lucky because we're one of the final panels of the session. So we get to leave the most impactful recommendations to the academies and their staff about what they should do as they move forward with this really ambitious and exciting climate crossroads initiative. So from each of your perspectives, can you talk about what you think the academy should do to foster uptake of these novel and potentially disruptive solutions to climate intervention? You want to start that? I'll take a start. Okay, we'll go in reverse order this one. I'm privileged to be on the Board of Energy and Environment System. So I've had an insight view on some of the consensus reports. I think the academy is doing a fantastic job already in identifying and evaluating potential of different technologies or intervention pathways or different solution types. I think where we can take it further in the context of climate crossroads or others is in what I call knowledge translation. This came up in the decarbonization breakout. Explain saying the same thing in different language for different audiences. This is kind of a lot to ask the academies to take on. So an idea I've been kicking around that I want to actually put some work into to see if it's real ideas. Maybe there's a partner organization that could help with that kind of translation so the academy can keep to its strengths but then also broaden its impact. But getting the word out, building on the strength, I think is a helpful next step to think about. So as a lawyer, I have to have four examples. I think of you and I do. The first two, I'll go really, really quick, which is I think it's time to go ahead and do whether it's a consensus study or an action collaborative or a workshop or whatever to build out the private sector wedge or the private mitigation wedge and the individual behavioral wedge as well. I think it's time to go ahead and put those on the radar screen and use the resources of the academy to really explore how we could achieve those. But stepping back more generally, I'm working with support from Carnegie on trying to understand in our deeply polarized gridlock world, how do we broaden the group of people who are interested in understanding the climate science and so forth? And I think it is so easy for those of us who are in the academic world and so forth to not understand how deeply differently people understand their own realities, how much identity and worldview plays. And so I think a real focus on how do we reach the 40% or so of the population that's deeply skeptical of climate change and is resistant to new information because it's outside of their identity. It's not what we do. And I think that so many of the models that we all grew up with essentially are information deficit models. You give me information and I change my behavior. That has almost no explanatory power when it comes to climate. People have an identity and then they engage in confirmation bias and motivated reasoning and they end up in the same place no matter what the information is. So I think the academies would do well to spend time both studying that but also to be thinking about how to make sure that we get people who we may be not sharing a view with at the table in many cases. And one way to do that I think is to think about always addressing feasibility. And again, I know it's not a standard thing to do in a lot of scientific reports but I believe the academic literature in law and social science and natural science would be better when it has to account for the feasibility of the adoption of its remedies. In the area I work in, we spent roughly 30 years with everyone agreeing that a carbon tax was the optimal solution and it is except that it can't be adopted. And so what did Congress do? Congress didn't do the polluter pays legislation which did the beneficiary pays. It subsidized behavior. That's feasible now. So let's look at the remedies there. We would have done less time in the legal literature and I think the academies would spend less time on remedies that couldn't work and we would improve the rigor of the work we do if we force ourselves even in narrative form to say we think this is feasible for the following reasons. And if you can't make that case go back and study something else or re-study the form of your analysis. That would be a suggestion of mine. Atomies has got an incredible amount of experience with convenings of many diverse groups. Starting with the government university industry research round table and that whole history and various forums on emerging microbiological problems, food forum where they're bringing together the private sector, government, academia, interested advocacy organizations. And more recently they've been doing a lot of community outreach through the Gulf research program and a number of the new projects that have been undertaken. So I think there's an opportunity here under the climate crossroads to continue to build on those models of convening. And then secondly, I think that the climate crossroads initiative should really very judiciously given the commitment of the three presidents figure out how they can convene because they've got an entree into decision making at the highest levels in every sphere. And they could really bring together like-minded leaders in a way that very few other organizations could. So I think that convening is something this offers just incredible opportunities. Again, judiciously well chosen, well targeted and with a good scientific base underlying. So easy, right? I agree with all of my co-panelists and Mike, I wanna sign up for this private sector wedge study because I think it's so absolutely needed. A lot of the models, particularly in the IPCC work, we assume that the world is frictionless and these technologies are easy to implement and to adopt but that's just not the case. And there are real individual preferences. There are polarization of attitudes. There are real, I think stickiness and difficulty with changing behavior that are not accounted for in these models. And they're very broadly globally resolved and now with the data revolution we're getting more high resolution data that makes it increasingly possible for us to actually model realistically. I think, Michael, what you said, what can actually be feasible for the US or different communities or businesses to actually implement by way of climate solutions? So I mean, I think there's a lot of possibility. I would just encourage the climate crossroads and the academies to really think about and as you said, Kathy, is the convening power of being able to just kind of take a step back and be more objective and to be able actually to be a lot more responsive than like an IPCC assessment. I mean, that assessment takes like five to six years. We can only use peer reviewed scientific literature, not even something that is in grade literature. And so it really creates this lag in the scientific knowledge and the academies is not hamstrung by that limitation. So I think there's a real opportunity to be very responsive, to pick up on these trends and to really do some innovative stuff. And as you say, Kathy, they can bring together the best expertise from all corners of the world and so that convening power is incredibly, I think, significant. Great, so I wanna turn it over to the audience. Again, please line up in front of the two microphones. For those of you online, please submit your questions. I had a feeling we'd have a lot of good questions for this, which is great, we have plenty of time for it. So again, please state your name, your affiliation, hopefully a quick succinct question so we can get to as many as possible. We'll start here on the left. I went for it, okay, awesome. That one probably has to be turned on to you. So my name's Renee Colini, I'm with the Gulf Center for Equitable Climate Resilience, but before that I was in Sea Grant for a long time. And so I often think about the mundane and the implementation. And so when we talk about adoption of new technologies or innovations, I'm thinking about Roger's theory and I'm thinking about compatibility in particular. And so we heard a lot about innovations you're excited about, but I'd love to hear a little bit about what progress around the infrastructure to support innovations that y'all are excited about or you see coming. And then I'd also like, can I'm asking two questions at once. Also, any comments or thoughts you could have about how we start innovating in the legal and policy space a little bit more intentionally? So I'll start with the legal piece and I'll turn over to my colleagues with the other piece. I think we are making real progress and I think there are reasons to be optimistic. I think that the adoption of the IRA was a wake up call to my profession. I was taught environmental law as a subfield of administrative law. So if it didn't involve a statute or a regulation all subject to constitutional review and courts, et cetera, it didn't exist. And I'm working right now on a Facebook that's looking at private environmental governance because of what we're seeing Marcus doing here and what we see Angel is saying are the opportunities and the same thing Kathy has mentioned. So I think we're beginning to see innovation, but I think it's gonna be important for students to insist on it because many of us in my profession were taught as I was that it's a subfield of administrative law and we tend to resist things that we don't know that well. And maybe some of the AI will start pushing us in the right direction. But so I'm beginning to see because Congress adopted an innovative way to solve an environmental problem. It wouldn't have counted as an environmental statute in my environmental law class because it was just giving people money. It wasn't telling them to do anything. That's now part of environmental law and I think to stay relevant we're gonna have to modify ourselves. That would be one. The second one really quickly is just and I think this is true throughout the academy we have to still value critical thinking and challenging each other. It's too easy. I hear this all the time. How can you possibly support private sector action? Private companies are the problem. It's as if game over. Well, yes, absolutely. They're a big part of the problem but let's think in a more critical nuanced way. And I think if we can keep that sense of intellectual vibrancy going we're much more likely to come across the really innovative solutions. Can I just add Mike to your conversation on the IRA? I think what's also been innovative is just the focus on equity and addressing the disproportionate distributional impacts of climate change. And I mean, I think that's really been a revelation. I was invited to speak at the regional EPA and the research triangle a couple months ago and everyone there they said we could not have imagined inviting a speaker to talk about climate justice at the EPA five years ago. And now it's a complete sea change and I think it's largely because within the text of the IRA itself it says we have to be particularly addressing the historic legacy and the impacts of structural racism which I'm sorry it goes beyond redlining. I think people reduce it to just, it's not. It's at every single level from private institutions to national government to presidents at the Supreme Court actively keeping populations segregated. And so I mean that to me I think is really a huge opportunity and a huge innovation. So if you are a private business, if you are a local government, if you are a university you have to be putting equity in the center of consideration of whatever climate solution you're designing. I think that's really, I think gives me a lot of encouragement. I might also add from a research funder perspective we're providing a lot of support for researchers across the country that are doing place-based community research. Which I think there's not enough of, right? Because a lot of the scholarship happens in models, in large scale data analysis which has a very important key role but that also needs to be complimented by place-based research in the communities where these transitions are happening to understand the ecosystem for innovation. So I might just add that in there. In the interest of time maybe we'll go on to the next question. Question for Mike. I'm Karen Florini with Climate Central and I would assert that the key problem that we're facing at the moment given the exigency of time is less one of lack of proponents and more of an excess of opponents. And that thus we really need to be focusing on how to communicate beyond the choir. Yes. And for to do that what role might the academies have in actually reaching beyond the choir not using something necessarily labeled climate crossroads but to reach people who will not only not come to but will affirmatively avoid engaging with something that is labeled climate. So how do you go to the places where those folks are? How do you get to local chambers of commerce? How do you get to the Rotary, the Kiwanis, the Rocksburgs, et cetera? And specifically what I'm asking is what role if any can the academy play in that? I think that's an amazing question and coming from someone who's legally trained as well. I think it's not surprising that it's very insightful. So I think the first step, number one, I totally agree with you. And I think people in my profession, particularly environmental law professors tend to ignore the fact that 18% of the US population controls 50 to 52 votes in the Senate. So you can imagine any cool solution you want. And if you don't get that part, 55% of the US population wants to do something about climate change according to the best available research. With our constitutional design, that doesn't produce change. You don't get change with 55% if they're distributed the way they are. They're mostly California, New York and other big in blue cities. So the starting point is this isn't just some nice thing we should try to do. And I think you have boots on the ground really trying to make change in the work you do with climate communications. So step number one is this isn't some nice fluffy thing we do. We must do this if we want substantial change. That would be number one. Number two from my perspective is again to get out of this idea that the information deficit model is the problem. You can tell people over and over if they've been convinced that their identity doesn't include climate being a part of it. If that's a liberal thing and then they're not liberal, you can tell them anything you want to. You can spend a million dollars telling them that and they're not gonna change their mind. Not maybe a little bit on the margin. So then the question is, if that's true how do we try to have what the former head of our radiology department has gone all and he's taken a year to study how we can decarbonize the medical sector. And one of the things he tells people all the time is we need to start with empathy. We can't be in this place where oh we have all the knowledge and your viewpoint is discounted or not credible. We start with saying you're a good person too, you're a thoughtful person too. Once we do that, what I'm working on, number one I would say it's a massive challenge. I don't have an answer so I'm gonna admit defeat to begin with. But what we're working on is a whole range of different ways about both picking different remedies. Sometimes you're going to need to pick a remedy that isn't your favorite because it's one that's acceptable in the community of people. And an example I would give you is it was Walmart that did this LED initiative that I just mentioned. We found that when conservatives hear that Walmart acted on climate change they become more open to the idea that it's a problem and to doing something about it. If you're on the left you're not so excited about Walmart very like. So you're picking a slightly different remedy maybe that you're emphasizing. So it's not just simplistic communication, it's partly communication but it's partly being willing to empathize with the target audience and to think about changing a remedy in order to get there. And then the last thing I would say is there are slightly communication approaches that would work and I'll just say two of them really quickly. One of them is pluralistic ignorance. The idea that people wanna do what others are doing we all know that from the social science literature most Republicans don't know that most other Republicans support doing something about climate change when they hear that most others are they become more interested in it. The other is a superordinate identity. We tend to be driven by conflict entrepreneurs to focus on our identity group and that caused us to reject other information but you can frame information around a superordinate identity, an overarching and maybe even a smaller identity, community level identity and that may open people's minds a little bit to accepting new information into working with one another. So I would love to have a longer conversation with you because we're right in the middle of a lot of work on this and I think your expertise would be super helpful in the work we do and I hope we can do that. Go on to the next question over here. Well, my name is Tom Dietz and I'm not the academic Tom Dietz I'm the private citizen Tom Dietz. And I wanna make a comment reacting to Marcus's comment about trusted sources. One of the reasons I came to this as a private citizen was I recognized the National Academy as a trusted source for information and I think that's the brand that the National Academy has for governments and policy makers. But I think there's a, and Marcus you said this as well I think there is an opportunity to reach further than that and to try to get information out to the businesses, the communities, the people that can actually implement climate change or climate action and get that information out and tell the stories about success. In my experience, when I've done something like put solar panels on a roof or buy an electric car my friends and family look and see me doing that and they see the success and I tell them the stories about how much money it saved me and how nice the electric car is to drive and guess what, they start doing it too and we need to tell those stories and I think the National Academies can do that. Marcus or can you talk a little bit about the power of storytelling at all what role that plays here? Because that's something that often doesn't come into technical, I can tell it maybe in sort of hopefully an honest way, right? So I came up as sort of a typical math and engineering nerd kid and then studied engineering and then studied quantum physics, right? Like if you go to a party and tell somebody you studied quantum physics like that's the end of the conversation. They just say, oh, and walk away. There's nothing, you know, but and so the point is storytelling does not come naturally in that kind of tradition. I live in LA now. Everyone in LA describes themselves as storytelling. I heard a union executive introduce a panel and say, really, I'm a storyteller at heart. Think you're a deal-making lawyer. That's not an insult, that's cool, but okay, maybe he's working on a screenplay or something, but stories have a way of connecting with people at a really deep fundamental cultural level. This is not a new insight. Every human being knows this somehow because they're expert at this or they just know it innately. And as I learned more about the media industry, I'm just very excited about, you know, like here's a thought experiment, right? Is there a human story attached to 5% of the findings from a National Academy consensus report? I'm sure there is. Who could write or generate or film or get those stories out? I don't know, but somebody could. Would that matter? I bet it would. That's an interesting thought exercise. I think we can find a way to maybe make that happen or, you know, build on that concept and make it a much better idea. Next question, please. Linda Langston, former elected official and Kathy also from Iowa State Person. So it's kind of a two-fold question. One is when I think about Iowa and agriculture, I think about the Iowa Farm Bureau, who is a difficult nut to crack. And I'm wondering, and Mike, you may have some thoughts as well, how do we speak a language that we don't end up in this monolithic corn, soybeans, ethanol discussion because some of that has to change? And secondly, some of the things we talked about earlier over the last couple of days made me realize that we're a bit like the frogs that are in the pot and it's getting warmer. It would be fine if we jumped in when it was hot because we would jump right out. But people are becoming acclimatized to disasters at every turn. And are there language uses or things that we can do without totally scaring people but helps people make that move towards action? Because I think personal agency is needed. Yes, well, well, to tell a story. When I first moved to Iowa, I was recruited there as Dean of Agriculture, the first woman dean and also one of the first ones who had not spent an enormous amount of time in Iowa prior to coming into that role. And one of the things I was cautioned about very early on was when you're out talking to the Farm Bureau, when you're out talking to individual farmers, do not mention climate change and do not mention sustainability. Those are words that will just characterize you in one way, but you can talk about the weather. I don't think the weather is weird. Yeah, but ask farmers about what their experience has been over recent years, engage with them, try to figure out what are the things that are of importance to them and engage around that. And so you're absolutely right. You have to find the right language. A really quick supplement to that is there's a growing movement for the buyers of agricultural products to insist that the growers of those products perform better from a sustainability perspective. There's a way to bypass the lobbying power and to work through a mechanism of free enterprise that that group is comfortable with. Go on to the next question. Well, you just hit the terminology, I think that I was gonna be after in terms of how we deal with this Gordian knot of continuing rising emissions, the next conference of parties being chaired by a person whose company is about to expand oil production by 7.5 billion barrels. And we have this gridlock that it's not so much conflict entrepreneurs, although they do exist on YouTube, but a sustained campaign of lobbying by fossil fuels. Is it really the approach in the face of that to ignore that sustained campaign and do the storytelling person to person community to community? Or is there a way to tackle the beast head on? I might ask you to answer that because you have some experience in this international forum and what that's like to deal with these very conflicted set of parties. I think you're absolutely right. And this is really the million dollar challenge and the largest elephant in the room in these climate talks. But I will say I've been encouraged attending these forum and having these kinds of conversation. I think there's a broader public attitude that it's completely inconsistent and what fossil fuel companies are pledging by way of decarbonization. It's completely disingenuous. So I am one of the contributors to the net zero tracker and we look at the Forbes 2000 companies and the largest regional governments as well as subnational governments and countries as well. We out of the 72 fossil fuel companies that are in the Forbes 2000 that have pledged some type of climate change target we have found not a single one of them is actually doing it in a credible way. And the fact that there has been this realization and now we have language introduced in some of these negotiation texts talking about phasing down, not phasing out because there were some pushback particularly from some developing countries and these OPEC countries as well. But the phase down, I think that language is there and it's been a consistent narrative. And now I think increasing scrutiny and recognition that it's inconsistent with a 1.5 or even a two degree world. And so I think, yeah, this is particularly in June when I was there in bond at the intersessional this was a big part of the conversation as well. And so now the UN climate change secretariat they've launched a separate accountability framework and they wanna hold fossil fuel companies to account for what they're doing and what they're not doing on climate change and to be credible. And so, yeah, this is where also I think AI could be trying to be a fact checker and actually a powerful tool against misinformation. I'd just like to comment on that briefly because I think it's important question related to this year's host of COP28 and their status in the oil industry. As you probably know, the number one oil producing nation on earth is the United States. Does that mean that the National Academies of Science the United States National Academies of Sciences is not a credible voice for climate conversation? Probably we would say no in this room. And I'm not saying that that's a defense of the hosts or the fossil fuel industry but I think it's an interesting thought starter to think about perspectives about who is a credible actor and who isn't. The COP is never in the United States for different reasons but if the COP were in the United States would people be saying how dare we have it in an oil producing nation? Next question please. Hello, my name is Sharonda Allen, author, historian, scientist, social philanthropist, environmental steward, climate reality leader, nonprofit founder, leader and educator. I'm hearing all these lofty activities and research but where specifically does it hit the ground to translate into environmental justice in front line underserved communities? What do you already have in place? So one of the greatest strengths of a behavioral wedge is that and the inflation reduction act again 12% of all that money is going to household energy use reduction and much of that is going to underserved communities and people have the greatest energy burden who are at the lowest end of the economic system. People who really need money the most are spending the highest percentage of their budget on energy and so when we induce them to have a more fuel efficient equipment to weatherize their homes and frankly in the long run to adopt EVs although right now they have higher upfront costs, they have lower long-term costs and they don't break down as often so that whole suite of issues is in play right now at a level I've never seen in my lifetime and so if we can keep pushing that, I view this and this is to the other question too, we're not solving this and we're not winning. I think we're really trying to keep our finger in the dike. I think hoping that the evidence of climate harm is great enough that the political swing will occur that can persuade more of the 18% of the population that controls 52 votes in the Senate. So step number one is we try to do as much justice as we can by reducing energy burdens and we do a lot of other things to try to reduce the amount of carbon emissions to buy ourselves enough time that when there's enough public support to do the bigger efforts, we will not be too far behind the curve. I don't know what else we do. Now others may have much better answers than I do to that question. I don't know if it's better but I'll say that I've spoken a couple of times about the idea of translating this kind of discourse into information that people can use and businesses. We actually started our business with a hypothesis that focusing on small businesses would be the way to go. We're trying to work on a project connecting with local restaurants. As you know, local restaurants tend to be family owned and they have extremely razor thin margins which means when you start to talk about sustainability it's like, what are we even talking about? I'm trying to stay in business week to week. I don't have time or 100 bucks to spend on an extra climate this or that. So starting with the approach of where are businesses which are not people but are sort of in the community sometimes. Where are businesses? What do they actually need and then how can we translate some of the higher-minded language and ideas to actually meet those problems rather than showing up and saying we have a suite of solutions. Oh, you don't want any of these? Oh, where do we go wrong? So we are trying that. Let's see if we can succeed. You just also answer your question. I think you're exactly right. One of the best parts of my role is I get to see all the great work that our grantees are doing. So we've got grantees that are working with indigenous communities in Montana, Alaska, Arizona, frontline communities in oil and gas, transition locations in South Carolina, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida, folks working in West Virginia and Puerto Rico. So I think that kind of community-engaged research is really key. We also have a grantee called Pecan Streets that's looking at monitoring home electricity use in real time at a very granular levels and we've been helping them expand their testbed to work with communities in Atlanta, Oklahoma, Eastern Pennsylvania, places that often are not tracked in this very detailed way. And I think that's the way to make progress is actually expanding the research in places that are often overlooked and something that I think actually needs to happen a fair amount of, especially with the IRA funding. Let me move on to the next question over here. Hi, David Goldston. This comes maybe from a slightly different angle than some of the other questions. So Kathy Witecki said sort of casually coercion doesn't work and certainly using the word coercion doesn't work, but the regulation has been a huge part of environmental advance. It's even part of the light bulb story before you get to the Walmart part. So there obviously are problems there and other approaches and regulation only goes so far, especially that's to actually promote technological innovation. But I'm wondering, is the implication taking traditional regulation off the table and if not, then what are some of the ideas to sort of lay the groundwork for that as part of the policy portfolio going forward? Well, I'm glad you caught me on that one because I do believe that there are appropriate roles for government regulation. But what was in my mind when I said that was with respect to people's food choices and how dictating how much meat protein, dairy protein should be part of your diet is not going to be accepted. So it was in that context that I said that, but I do believe that there are very appropriate places for government regulation. So we only have a few minutes left. So one thing I'm gonna ask is we have three more questions. I might ask for some rapid fire questions among the remaining questions that maybe could have some final reflections up here. So how about all three folks go on that microphone, hopefully relatively quickly. Hi, my name is Herb Simmons. I'm the author of the new book called A Climate Vocabulary to Future with a thousand terms, 400 or original. And I was thinking about what term out of all that thousand fits with the concept of crossroads. And I looked and I saw one of the terms climate microbiome. The concept that basically we're learning more and more that we're not in control, it's the microorganisms in our guts and the soil and the atmosphere as we saw with COVID, et cetera, et cetera, that are running the show and significantly affecting the climate crisis and significantly potentially providing opportunities for solutions that cross disciplinary boundaries. And so my question to you all is, is this an issue or a concept that the NAS entities are looking at? If not, could you look at that? What is the potential? And the last thing I'll say is in writing the book I noticed there was a call for action by a group of microorganism scientists if that's what you want to call them back in 2019, essentially urging and almost begging the world to look at that dimension of the climate crisis. The next two before we have some final thoughts here. Okay, yes, so I will be quick. David Blackstein from Bard College where I co-direct the worldwide teaching on climate and justice. So two quick questions of Marcus, you asked for suggestions. How do we contact you and share that? And then Angela or maybe Evan with respect to artificial intelligence. What is the energy consumption of artificial intelligence relative to other computing and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions? Right, last one please. Jackie Nunez, founder of the Last Plastic Straw and Advocacy and Engagement Manager for Plastic Pollution Coalition. So I'm gonna ask the obvious question, plastics and its role in climate and where we feel that we can really push the needle on that. I think it hits a lot of these markers and actually can help move the needle on a lot of stuff on the local, state, federal level but also on the global level working on a global plastics treaty and crowning the same players, tainting that process as well because it is the toxic waste byproduct of the fossil fuel and gas industry which created a market plastic and it's affecting us all. Thank you. We had some questions about language, terminology, AI, energy consumption, plastics and your final thoughts. So maybe we'll go rapid fire down the line, 30 seconds and we have a clock here tracking us to give your final thoughts you can either respond or give your final thoughts in conclusion. Angel? A lot of pressure but I speak very fast so I think I'm up for it. So in response to the question about AI and energy consumption the estimate is something around 2% but I don't know exactly how they came up with those numbers and obviously there are limits to Moore's law of how much we can get in terms of additional gains of efficiency with microchips and computing technology and also if everybody has that kind of belief oh, I'm only 2% and the minimus attitude then quickly that energy consumption could really bloom. So yeah, I guess I'll just end there with answering that question. I'll take the microbiome one. Go right ahead. There's an enormous amount of interest in microbiome and increasingly in fungi and the role that they play. I think Amanda it's to you about what the National Academy's engagement is here. I think there are some projects that are ongoing but I'm only aware of a small portion of them. So I think it's a really exciting area of research. So the plastics question hasn't been addressed yet so I'll tee that one up and my thought on that generally is the value of your organization and others getting more data out there to get people to understand the importance of plastics. What are the human health and environmental harms and the greenhouse gas emissions associated with them? Because I think they get caught up in the whole debate about oh, you're just talking about plastics draws and it almost becomes an example of a dysfunctional debate. So I think you all can do quite a bit to get that substance out there which will help refocus the debate in areas that matter and I just wanna thank you all for this opportunity again. Thank you. My email address is myfirstname.mylastnameatco2.com. Brower.com, CO2. Yeah, CO2.com, I don't know how that got bought but yeah, we have that. I won't comment too much on plastics, I'm not an expert there and I know we're short on time. With respect, I can't resist the comment about energy consumption of AI and electronics. One of the ideas that animated me as a graduate student, this is really kind of science fiction now, is the idea of computing based on optics, that's an optics person, not electronics and one of the motivations was speed and dramatic energy efficiency. I'm only bringing this up as a non-ridiculous idea because there was a news headline yesterday that someone thinks they might have an optical computer working somewhere. I don't know if it's real but check it out, I'm gonna check it out. And I just wanna address a question that really didn't get fully answered earlier about supports for innovation. You make the whiz bang thing. The wild success of software has warped our sense of how technology actually gets into the market because the software, five clever people can get together and shipping a product means clicking and uploading it to a website and you're done and it's almost never regulated, right? Like Instagram is not a regulated product, it just is a piece of software that got uploaded to the web and it ships. Nothing else works that way. Software's amazing, I'm not hating on software. Think back to other pieces of hardware, things like cars, power stations, food safety equipment and a common denominator electronics, a common denominator for a support system is not just government support on the front end, government often ends up being the first customer, so procurement and this is a major opportunity for state, local, federal governments here and around the world to support any type of solution whether it's considerative or not, just buy it, become a customer, use it, test it and then the private sector who loves to champion their risk taking really it's governments and the public that take the biggest risks but that's a big opportunity as well. So this has been truly fascinating. I wanna thank everyone on the panel. I wanna congratulate Amanda and the entire community academies for putting together an incredible Climate Crossroads Summit. We'll have some concluding remarks but please join me in thanking the panel. Wow, another paneler. I wish you guys could just keep talking with us for another hour. This has just been a terrific two days, more than I think we could have hoped for. One of the really wonderful things about working at the academies is you get to go to all these meetings with really thoughtful people here are like amazing ideas and so sometimes I feel like my head is like a mini crossroads where in each of those meetings I'm like, oh, you need to talk to this person. I saw in that meeting and oh, you need to connect over there. And so one of the things I was really hoping that this meeting could be is a place to make some of those linkages in connection so not everything must go through just my head since that is not sustainable. And I really hope that we might be able to make this an annual event. I am incredibly grateful and encouraged by all of the support and the enthusiasm that we've received for climate crossroads. I have to tell you it was a risky thing, definitely stepping out of the comfort zone here. And it is just very heartwarming and just exciting to get all of that support. So thank you, I'm just really grateful for that. And I am also incredibly challenged by the magnitude of the work that is to be done. And so our team are approaching this work with a lot of humility. We know it's a lot of work and we have a lot to learn. So we're committed to continuing to listen and engage and see if there are ways that we can work with the existing infrastructure. I really took that to heart from what Sokobi said this morning to figure out how we can add value, how we can empower others and connect others and how we can fill gaps. I see that there are quite a lot of opportunities for us and probably more than we can ever follow up on but I'll just highlight for that stood out to me. I really think there are a lot of opportunities for the academies to work with academia. We've heard that a few times over the last couple of days about the role for campuses as hubs to enable action within their communities, sort of the need to think at how we handle tenure and promotion and grant making to enable faculty and those in university settings to do this kind of work, how our universities can be innovation hubs and connecting to the private sector. We already have been thinking some about how we might bring together universities to create a space for an ongoing dialogue about how they might do those things together. So stay tuned on that. A second opportunity is I think a real opportunity for us to listen to and center the work around those who are most vulnerable and susceptible to climate impacts and in ways that recognize and address the intersectional challenges. I really appreciated our panel first thing this morning. I think it gave us quite a lot to take home and think about. Third, there's an opportunity for us to accelerate action by serving as a crossroads. And I keep coming back to that, but I really like the image of that and the meaning behind the crossroads. I think we have the opportunity to have impact by bringing different disciplines together to combine their expertise, bring different sectors together to co-develop future pathways, bring different communities together to learn from each other. And those are the sorts of things I really wanna lean into as we're building this out. And then fourth, opportunities to partner. And Marcus said, oh, I think the Academy should look for, I don't remember where he is over there, a partner. And I think we need to look for many, many partners, right? We can't be just talking with one. We wanna really be thinking about how we can engage with many different groups that can help us connect with their communities. And so very excited to explore how we might build that out. So all that to say that I'm excited to embrace this moment. Sonya yesterday talked about this being a moment and I resonate a lot with that. And so excited to embrace this moment to work with all of you to harness the capacity of this institution and to have real impact going forward. This is really just the beginning of our work. Okay, so let me just share a little bit about the kind of things we're gonna be focusing on and in the near term. You've heard over the last few days, several people introduced themselves as members of a new advisory committee. We had really hoped that we could have announced the full membership by now. We're very close to doing that, but we will be appointing and announcing an advisory committee in the next few days, who will be working with us to implement and guide us on our work. We will also be launching the Congressional Fellows program. Hopefully later this month, the announcements will come out about that. Again, this is an inverted fellowship program where we'll be working with individuals who are full-time staff on the Hill and providing climate literacy and an opportunity for them to engage with experts in our network, learn from our reports and think about how climate would intersect with many, many different areas of policy making. So keep an eye out for that. Continuing to do a lot of our communications engagement work, our climate conversations series, please continue to join and listen into those. And we've heard a lot of good ideas about communication and engagement that we look forward to building upon. And then of course, I'm really excited to get the debriefs from each of the pathway breakouts today as we'll continue to develop out that work over the next year. I wanna invite all of you to engage with us. So we will be sending all of you a post-event survey. Please fill it out. It'll just take a few minutes. And it will really help us think about how we can learn from how we can do this sort of event better in the future. We'd really like to hear from you. We encourage you to sign up for our newsletter if you haven't already. This is a weekly newsletter. It comes out on Monday mornings. It'll give you that quick view of all of the projects and activities that are happening across the whole academy, including the Climate Crossroads work. So this is where you can find out if there's an upcoming workshop to register for, if you wanna nominate someone to serve on a committee or participate in our work. Report releases are all announced there. Job announcements, so please sign up for that. And then I hope everyone will continue to connect with each other. I think I've seen more business cards in the last two days than I've seen in the last three years, which is great. And so, and please help me connect with the folks from our showcase yesterday as well. If you would like to reach us at the Climate Crossroads team, we have our own email address. So please reach out to us at climatecrossroads.net at nas.edu or you can reach out to us directly at our email addresses. And then let me just close with, I have a long list of thank you. So please bear with me because there's so many people who helped make this event possible. So first of all, thank you so much to all of our facilitators and panelists. Just amazingly rich and thoughtful discussions and we really appreciate everything you did to prepare and to travel here and really this wouldn't have been possible without you. I wanna thank the leadership, our three presidents, Marcia McNutt, Victor Zhao and John Anderson. It's pretty amazing that we had all three of them here both on the stage and then through much of the last two days. And I hope you understand that that really is a strong signal of support from the highest levels of our institution for this work. I also wanna thank Greg Sims, our chief program officer who's just been an incredible supporter throughout all of our thinking and developing this project. We had a huge crew of staff. So I'm gonna name off a lot of folks who have been put in just an amazing effort to pull this all together. Amanda Purcell and Rita Gaskins who I mentioned the other day. I wanna give them a round of applause if they will give a round. The others on the core staff team include Rachel Sanchez, Eric Edkin who's been back there with making sure that everything looks amazing online. Holly Rhodes, Alex Reich, Alex Reich, Kasia Kornetsky, Lindsey Molar, Amy Mitsumori, Rob Greenway and many other staff who pitched in in terms of just making this event happen. I wanna thank all of our pathway leads and the teams who organized the pathway panel as well as the breakout sessions. So John Holmes and his team, Robin Shane, April Melvin, Laura Aylers, Elizabeth Ada and others from the thriving ecosystems team, Tom Thornton and Carlotta Arthur from the communities team and then Chris Hanley and the rest of the NAM grand challenge team on the health pathway. A huge number of staff contributed to the tabling last night. It was just really wonderful to see everyone all coming together. I can't miss all their names. It would take too long but just wanted to shout out to all of them for their help. And then to our comms team, Ben Elrich, Nancy Huddleston, Hannah Fuller and others from the comms team. Thank you for your support in pulling this all together. Okay, I'm not done yet. I have some more to go on these thank yous. I wanna thank the climate crossroads planning team. We've had a group of advisors working with us over the last year to kind of do the sort of initial thinking around climate crossroads. In addition, I wanna thank the climate communications initiative advisory committee. Mariette DeCristina and Bill Holman were co-chairs of that. We're folding the climate communications work into climate crossroads and their support over the last five years has been really pivotal to helping us think about the need for something bigger than just communications on climate here at the academies. And many other advisory groups who I've spoken to over the last several years have just been really helpful as well. Okay, I would like to also thank the many donors for our work. So new engagements and partnerships and donors are a vital part of the development and the growth of the climate crossroads. Our national academies presidents were very generous in providing seed funding to help us get started. And then I'd like to thank some of our other donors to the crossroads, including the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation who provided a generous grant that allowed this event to take place. The Heising Simons Foundation and the San Francisco Foundation who have both supported the congressional fellows program. Thank you. And then a number of donors who we've been speaking to over the last few years and have provided support for several of the activities and programs that have been launched in the last few years. And these funders include the Bezos Earth Fund, the Wallace Global Fund, Sloan Foundation and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, along with several individual donors who have contributed to this work. So thank you to all of you. Philanthropy is a really important part of the work we do here at the academies. And we need and value these philanthropic partnerships to address the many needs of our communities, our nation, people and ecosystems in response to the climate crisis. I wanted to thank our development team and introduced Joanne Morris, who's working closely with me on the climate crossroad in Allison Purvis. I'm not sure if she's still here, but thank you to both of them from the Development Office for their support and please feel free to reach out to Joanne if you would like to discuss philanthropy further. And then thank you finally to everyone who joined us, last but not least. You know, we are facing really serious challenges as a nation and a world. And as a person who's been working on this for more than 20 years, and more importantly, as a parent, sometimes the challenges we face with climate change are really overwhelming. And actually, I was talking with Matthew Nesbitt this morning and he used the word jaw clenching, which I resonate with a lot as a very frequent jaw clencher myself. It can get overwhelming. But what gives me hope is these kinds of gatherings and the incredible ingenuity and dedication of people like you who have joined us at the summit, both in person and online. So thank you, thank you for bringing your expertise and an open mind and your eagerness to engage with us on this topic. I'm really excited to get to work in carrying forward all the great ideas that you've brought to us. So thank you. Thank you.