 Actually, the world today is a lot different than it were only like seven years ago. That's just before the financial crisis. A lot of the things that we took for granted, the relationship we took for granted then are not really there anymore. And one of them is the fact that a lot of the economies around the world are really struggling for growth, looking for new type of growth models at the same time as low carbon opportunities, for example, are gearing up and getting bigger and bigger market shares. So there is some sort of movement, I think here, where that emerging, where ALEE's priorities begin to be connected to sustainability concerns. And it's not only green economy or a new climate economy, it's also things like security, where for good or bad, Pentagon is the main voice in the US to take climate security seriously. Now, not to dwell more on that. I would like to ask you all here, is this enough? What's happening? Should we forget about the climate negotiations? Is this really enough? The moments that we see now? Don't be shy. I'll have a go. And very short answers. I mean, there's no such thing as enough. I mean, we start from a situation where the number of cops can't be counted on your fingers any longer, you need two people, now it's going to be three people. We have a flat intensity of carbon in our energy system. We have the IPCC telling us that the rate of emissions isn't increasing, but the rate of emissions is increasing. And so at the same time, we know from the very reasons that we discussed here, that the decisions we make now are of enormous importance. So we need to get more people to talk about climate, whether or not climate is on their agenda or not. We need to enable more people, we need to enable finance ministers, we need to enable companies and others whose natural territory this is not to talk about it. And we need to set expectations differently, because speaking of the lock-in, we're in a curious situation where we have underinvestment, even as we have a glut of capital in the world. One reason is clearly that there's a lot of uncertainty, and I'm not saying all of the uncertainties to do with this, but one aspect of it is that we don't really have the confidence to invest in the green side of the economy. But then we may also be now saying we should not invest in the brown side. And so there's a need for it to set out in a clear direction. And I think the more we can start from existing agendas as a complement to, not a rival to climate negotiations, the more people will be inside that conversation rather than outside it. I don't disagree with that at all. Carla, I'd like to maybe turn back to the example you used at the beginning. You described how Sweden made decisions decades ago to be choosing its energy system. Yes, avoid a lock-in. Perhaps. They had the benefit of having access to hydro. Other countries have endowments of other fuels, fossil fuels, China, US, India, all have very large quantities of coal. And in the past, they may have chosen those for the same reasons that Sweden chose hydro power. So even as they start to demand less of that coal, they may seek other outlets for it. So I would suggest that looking at the supply side may also be warranted. Yeah. And you've already discussed the risk of new investments, such as the grand strategy from China, to pave out new infrastructure westward from China that could lead to new demand. If I can just build on that with the bar example that picked on your question, I think it's not so much of enough or not enough. It's this opportunity and the risk. The opportunity side is when you see this, when you compare this to we're still struggling 100 billion climate green, some fund with trillions, trillions that has been invested that you do see this as where the money is. This is where, in that sense, the opportunity lies. And also as you alluded, and now we're at the juncture that we feel, we know how to do this differently. Even the infrastructure, even this better GDP per capita, we know the alternative ways. I think that's where, but on the other side, these people tend to do what they know the most. For example, if something is driven by China, and we like to repeat what we have just achieved, and that has a very dark side. But then the question is, for example, I often go to China and people ask, we want to do the one belt, one road green, absolutely. And we want the financial institutions to set the model in the 21st century as the green financing institutions. We want to do trade differently. But then the SEI, we do a lot of trade research. So how can we as an organization feature those understandings to help the Chinese to do the bar more sustainably? So that, I think, is the question and the challenge for us all. I need to ask a final question, because we're approaching the end time for this very interesting conversation, which I hope could continue later tonight and in the corridors. And the coffee break, which we will have very soon. But I think it sounds positive. There are lots of things that start to align here, possibly between the a list of heavy political priorities and taking into account better opportunity for sustainability outcomes. But isn't there a risk that the sheer notion of this and the benevolent a list priorities generating sustainability, isn't that a risk of that being a comfort blanket? An illusion that it's enough to optimize the current system and we forget that we really need a very rapid and very transformative change. And I just want you each to comment for 10 seconds each on that. What do you think? Shouldn't we at all be on this stage discussing this? Well, I don't know if we should be here, but it's not my comfort blanket, the a list priorities. It doesn't do it for me. But I wanted to link back to what Per said before about there being powerful drivers that we can tap into. But we also need to do other things to complement that. And just one of the aspects I think we shouldn't forget about is the planetary boundary type of considerations. Also the limits to also what I talked about before about the rapid consumption increase. We have more and more stuff in our houses. And yeah, so I think when you compare the time scales in the the drivers that we've talked about today and the planetary boundaries, they're different. So they cannot do all for us. I think that I think there's a bit of a confusion between improvements, for example, in efficiency and producing a unit of something or consuming a unit of something and the fact that the population in the world is growing and more people are coming to the middle class and have more purchasing power and so forth. So I think your question is very valid. Whether we focus on optimizing our current economy like with all these things we are talking about or we think in a more systemic change, given that there is apparently no limit to our consumption as an absolute number. We can improve our relative efficiency but probably in the long term there's a limit and maybe we should address it as soon as possible. Yeah, so there is a risk to discuss what we're discussing. Any quick last word because then we close the session. Looking at A-list versus B-list, it's as easy to turn them around. And what we found when we went to Central Asia was how easy something that you could call as a B-list or water management, what kind of implications it will have on all kinds of A-list, on jobs, on trade, on security and simply that kind of dichotomy is not sufficient. They are already there, we're facing these problems that we may face in the future. And similar as the first example you gave on Sweden how they chose hydro and nuclear. Inversely, Central Asia chose the easy part in focusing on fossil fuels while having the huge potential on developing hydro. And now there are tremendous security issues with stronger powers down below, for example Uzbekistan or threatening with war if the countries that have the hydro potential to develop them. So even if you would like to do it right now it's much more complicated. I think time is up.