 Good morning and afternoon and evening everyone, wherever you are in the world. Welcome to the natural capital conversation session for today, September 7th. I'm Mary Reckleshaus and I'm the managing director of Nat Cap and we welcome you. We have a wonderful group of speakers today and a moderator Steve Bulaski that I'm going to quickly turn over to you but I'm going to give you a really brief intro to Nat Cap, the natural capital project, first, and then a few logistics. So we are a partnership Nat Cap is a partnership and our aim is here it's to pioneer science technology and partnerships like those with you all that allow people and nature to thrive. We have a host of core partners shown here at the bottom including the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute on the environment at University of Minnesota and the Stockholm Resilience Center, and then the Nature Conservancy and Wildlife Fund. We also have a large network that includes many of you on this call. Our aim is to do new science that serves changes in policy and finance decisions and you'll hear some of that today. So the speakers I'll let Steve introduce, but it's a wonderful group representing this network of networks that's been formed. We're helping meet the need for urgent urgent science needs for meeting this sustainable development goals. So bringing together networks of modelers in global trade and economics that's cheetah that Tom here as founded the Nat Cap our network is here for ecosystem service change modeling, and then a bunch of key hydrology land use change and economics networks from around the world. So it'll be exciting to hear Kathy's framing of this as well for how does this new science linking these big models really start to inform new sorts of decisions. Okay, so just a few nuts and bolts and then over to Steve. So we will be recording this webinar and it'll be available on our YouTube channel, and we can also share a copy of the slides included with that after you after the webinar. And then just one detail if you have questions for the panelists which we really encourage, please put those in the question and answer box. And then if you have technical problems or anything else that you really just need help with that goes in the chat box so there's two different places for you to communicate with us. And then finally, this conversation series that we're part of today is part of a larger one that Nat Cap has been hosting for a little over a year now, and they're really designed to spark great discussions and follow up so we hope you'll do that engage today with the speakers, and the next one coming up will be on urban nature and how that can provide solutions for people and biodiversity in nature. Okay, thank you very much for listening to this overview and Steve, it's all yours. Okay, Mary you got us off to a really prompt start even before noon or before 10am your time. So it's just, it's just noon now we're getting. We're looking at the participant list and it's, it's, it's bouncing up so I don't know if you want to repeat anything that you said to a wider audience than when you started but I think maybe we can, we can just go on. If you have questions for speakers, please go in the q&a and if you have technical difficulties, put those in the chat. That's probably the bottom line. Everything else Steven the speakers will teach us. Thanks. Hello, my name is Steve Pulaski and based at the University of Minnesota and with that kept since the beginning. And it's a real pleasure today to have, have this dialogue on the topic of bringing the value of nature into the economic mainstream. So I'm going to spend just a moment, and I'm motivating this topic, and then introduce our three speakers which I'm really glad that we have these three to talk about this important topic. So, if you're in a natural capital dialogue. You are already aware that nature provides numerous benefits to people and essential life support. But the values of nature are often largely invisible in market economies, the quote that nature works for free. It means that there are inadequate incentives to maintain or enhance natural capital that that is essential for providing the flows of these ecosystem services these benefits to people. We know from earlier work. So the, the best work, the global assessment and earlier the millennium ecosystem assessment show that a majority of ecosystem services or nature's contributions to people are declining. And in particular, it is those benefits that are outside of the market system, what economists would call public goods that have shown the greatest decline. So today we're going to be talking with Tom Hurdall and Justin Johnson and Kathy about how to overcome some of these barriers and to, in fact, bring the value of nature into the economic mainstream. I'm going to introduce all three speakers at the start and then we'll turn it over to them. So Tom Hurdall is distinguished professor of agricultural economics at Purdue University. Tom is the founder and executive director of the global trade analysis project or GTAP, which has created the leading global generally equilibrium economic model of production consumption and trade that is necessary for understanding sustainability challenges. Tom has pioneered linking these economic models with natural science models to understand the impacts of economic activity and climate change, land use, biodiversity, conservation pollution and water quality, and to understand the impacts of environmental change on things in the trading GDP and so forth. Tom is also the lead PI for GlassNet, which is a global local analysis of system sustainability network and NSF funded network of networks of which both GTAP and NACCAP are part of, and it's been a real pleasure working with Tom on this and other projects over the last couple of years. Our second speaker is Justin Johnson, who is an assistant professor of applied economics at the University of Minnesota. Prior to joining the faculty here, Justin works at NACCAP for a number of years where he worked on a wide range of issues including global mapping of ecosystem services and linking ecosystem service models with computable general equilibrium models. He is the lead author of a recent report published just a couple of months ago in July by the World Bank entitled Making the Economic Case for Nature. So really integrating our ecosystem service models and these economic models. And then third is Kathy Kling. Kathy is the Tisch University professor and faculty director of the David R. Atkinson Center for Sustainable Futures at Cornell University. She is past director of the Center for Agricultural and Resource, excuse me, Rural Development at Iowa State University, where she also held the president's chair in environmental economics. Kathy is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and her research focuses on economic valuation of the system services and integrating integrated assessment model for water quality model. And I'm sure Kathy will provide some framework for the kind of nuts and bolts that we're going to go through on linking GTAP and invest and other ways of getting on specific. So, without further ado, Tom, I'm going to turn it over to you. And thanks very much for being here, all of you. Okay. I'm assuming you can see this. Okay, Steve, I'm, yes, I can visually and audioly. Great. Thanks for the introduction, Steve. Thanks for bringing this group together. I'm really excited to engage more with the Nat Cap community. I'm going to be talking about linking markets trade and the macro economy to ecosystem services and that's kind of a prelude to Justin's presentation. So this is kind of by way of background to make his job easier. And rather than start out immediately jumping into the GTAP deep water, I thought I would start out with a model which is essentially one sector taken out of GTAP, a partial equilibrium model, which we're able to implement at a fine scale and we'll talk a little about classic ecological problems, including excess nutrients from agriculture and groundwater sustainability challenges. I'll then get into the GTAP framework and I'll illustrate that with some analysis of human heat stress and labor markets, something we've been talking about quite a bit recently. And then finally, I want to talk, I know Justin was saying you all are very interested in distributional impacts, so I want to talk briefly about poverty impacts and of the heat stress example. So I'll be using in the partial equilibrium context I'll be using a model called simple, a simplified international model prices, agricultural prices land use the environment this was originally developed for teaching purposes. And we think simple, so you could quickly, you know, teach this to a broad range of people across many disciplines what we found out. Every time we taught this two or three journal articles emerged and we're well received in the interdisciplinary literature and we realized, this is also a research tool in fact because we're keeping economics simple. There's great possibility, great opportunity for robust transdisciplinary collaboration. So, after a while we realized aggregating all of the great stuff that people like by those in the NACAP community do up to the, to the, to the region or country level before putting it into simple was kind of ridiculous. And because the, the economics in simple are relatively simple, we could put those right down on the grid cell level. So simple G is simple covering the globe and then zooming in to one region or another at the five art minute level and I'll show you examples for the US. So there's now simple G us several versions of that simple G China, simple G Brazil is underway and there's a global simple G where the world as a whole is on a grid. So, once we get down to the grid cell level there's so many nice opportunities to interact that you'll see interact with ecologists and others. So this first example I'm going to focus on the, the Mississippi base and the problem of excess nutrients flowing into the Gulf of Mexico. Partly in deference to Kathy clean who's worked on this for a long, long time. I'm sure she'll have little prompts and thoughts on her part. To do this, because the leaching characteristics of irrigated and rain fed land are quite different we need to break up within each grid cell there's the irrigated crop and the rain fed crop. And we need to know about nitrogen application rates that information is not perfect as you can see from some of the state boundaries in there but that's the best we have currently. And so we want to investigate alternatives for coming closer to the epoxy task force goal you see in the lower right and we're way above that now. So, in order to analyze this we need to build in key agro ecological relationships, not all of them but the ones that are key to this problem. So these is just as you apply more nitrogen fertilizer, how much of a yield boost do you get. So we looked at Chris kucharek head of agronomy agro ecology at the University of Wisconsin and he ran the agribus bottle many, many times. It's an agro ecology model. We were able to map out this curve. In fact, it was the inside of Navin ramen cutting who you see there who told who said, Well, you know what you need our transfer functions. So he fitted the comforts curve for yield and that all important nitrogen loss relationship, the quadratic function with the opposite kind of curvature to represent implications adding more nitrogen so as you move out, you can see the benefit to yields is small, the increase in nitrogen is great and that's why people like Kathy often advocate for taxing nitrogen to reduce its use. So if you look at this in an economic model, well, you've got to be a little bit clever here and find the right, the right relationship so we have on the left the comforts functions and you can see that vary depending on where you are in this pretty world, depending whether it's irrigated or rain fed production. So you have these comforts curves and it turns out what we really care about what a commerce really care about is the curvature of these, and where you lie on this curve. On the right hand side, you can see the formula for the economic parameter that matters here namely the elasticity of substitution between nitrogen and land. So as you cut back on nitrogen how much yield do you lose and that formula is there and it's derived based on these fitted functions so you can see a map of these and they vary quite a bit depending on where you are in the US and of course and whether it's rain production. So that heterogeneity of the grid cell becomes important when we look at policies later on. So the policy I'm talking I'm illustrating here is a leaching charge. So you're polluting, you should be charged for the externality that you're imposing on the environment. And so leaching charge leads to reductions and applications but not as, but the loss in yield for a big reduction in and is much less than the reduction in night and nitrate leaching. So you can see that for this particular leaching charge output goes down by about 2% so prices go up food prices go up nitrogen use falls leaching falls even more. So there's a pretty strong reduction in leaching as you can see and it's mapped out there and various quite a bit depending on location. So the most effective policy and this paper that Jing Liu is about to submit perhaps it's already submitted multi scale analysis of nitrogen loss mitigation and corn belt explores a variety of policies not just leaching charges because it's unlikely politically that we implemented more likely our strategies to improve nutrient management controlled drainage or wetland restoration and you can see, depending on where you are in in this Mississippi River basin, depending on the local characteristics of that the biophysical characteristics as well as these economic characteristics the most effective policy varies. It varies across the landscape so this is a good reason why we should be doing this economic analysis at a fine scale. So that's single sector partial equilibrium first kind I just want to illustrate another one briefly with two slides because it has some very interesting spillover effects. So this is based on a couple of papers led by him on Hikigi. And here he's looking at groundwater sustainability restrictions. So what if we restricted ground is probably all of you know, they're dramatic drawn drawdowns and groundwater in the west and this is annual withdrawals are 10 times recharge so these water table was just dropping. It's not sustainable what if you restricted them to recharge levels, you could can't take more than annual recharge well, there's a significant reallocation of production from those irrigated areas to other places in the same kind of farm resource region the green here is what's called the fruitful rim reallocation to other parts of the country. There's also reallocation overseas. This is a slightly different paper slightly different experiment that the same concept of restricting groundwater withdrawals and in this case, you can see when you reduce production in places like the central super productive, you need a lot more land elsewhere in the world to offset that. So the, we have these interactions with through commodity markets that connect the grid cells, connect them at the region level the national level at the global level they're connected, because when you restrict production in one place prices go up. That's an incentive to expand elsewhere. So you have these market mediated spillovers that happen. Now I want to turn to general equilibrium analysis. So now what we're going to do is line up all the sectors in the economy. So simple G was just pulling out one sector and modeling that at fine scale. We don't have the full economy wide accounts at the grid cell level so we retreat to the national level, which is the level at which we have this full input output relationship, as well as the full bilateral trade relationships across sectors across across economies in the world. And G tap is the combination of all of those and we'll look at heat stress in particular because that affects many sectors. So if the shock or the input, the thing you're analyzing affects all the sectors in the economy. It doesn't isn't very beneficial to just look at one, because that often it's the relative whether labor moves in or out of agriculture depends on what's happening elsewhere. So heat stress just a word on heat stress here I'm leaning on collaborators in the Hoover lab here. And then Shin have worked closely as PhD students with with Matt Hoover, and they have figured out cool ways of computing wet ball globe temperature which is the combined effect on the human body and our ability to dissipate internally generated a energy based on temperature, humidity, solar radiation manual labor, actually other conditions as well. So you can see, you can, you can imagine that you've been out in a no doubt in places where it's been humid and hot. The same time it's really hard to cool down. And so working in that environment during the middle of the day in during any time during the day, even sometimes at night can be very difficult. So we want to focus on that two sectors that are very hard to farming and construction, simply because they largely take place non sheltered areas. These are just from an earlier set of calculations using an approximation to let all club temperature. You see how this heat stress might vary. So cross temperature and between the high and the low latitudes so in the high latitudes. This is perhaps not such a severe problem. Although it can still be an issue for people and uncertain days as we've seen in the media, but where this is a huge, huge problem is the human tropics. And there of course there's already been a lot of accommodation adjustment people get up very early in the morning. Take a siesta during the middle of the day but still it's very stressful. And if it doesn't cool down at night your body never really has a chance to adjust. And yes you have the benefit of air condition. The impact on workers is going to vary depending on activity and exposure. So, are you what sector you're working is agriculture manufacturers is it services. What type of worker are you are you white collar blue collar that's going to determine also your exposure. How often are you exposed to the outdoors that depends on your occupation the sector and your work intensity. So we refer to the BLS your labor statistics for a mapping of these things. So for each sector they're different types of labor and the different types of labor are affected in different ways. So, we put these together plug them into G tap as I said same structure as simple G. And the only difference is that now all the sectors are connected. And I just put up my timer here. All the sectors are connected. And we're tracking how much they sell to each other so how connected are they both within the economy and how connected to the art they to other economies around the world through bilateral trade flows. So these are estimates of the national labor capacity losses. In this work that's in prep hope to be submitted soon. We're pretty confident in these labor capacity losses having iterated quite a few times with the latest greatest tool for calculating what will blow temperature around the world at three hourly intervals over the whole duration of the, the different models in that in the IPC six climate model ensemble. So that you can see the labor capacity losses range, almost up to 10% that is a huge loss you're saying, all of a sudden, people that are working there take away 10% of that in and it's larger in some sectors Pakistan for example very hard. But what sectors are here, this is a global perspective. Each sector at the global level is a box, and the size of the box determines its contribution to the global welfare loss from labor capacity losses you can see the biggest ones coming in agriculture. In agriculture, Patty rice dominates why because Patty's grown in humid environments. Patty likes warm weather Patty likes humid weather, but the workers don't. So, this is a problem. You can see after that manufacturing because manufacturing is just a very big sector construction is disproportionately large here relative to services, the rest of services just because of its exposure. So national labor capacity losses translate into lower GDP, roughly in proportion to labor share in these economies, as you've aggregated up across the world. The biggest GDP losses are now in in West Africa, Nigeria, for example where agriculture is a more important sector in the economy. So GDP losses. Average labor capacity loss on average across the economy is smaller in Nigeria than Pakistan. But when you aggregate up across sectors in Nigeria is more severely affected. And that's all three C warming everything I show you three C warming across the tropics then you have these intense effects on output agriculture construction, but you know, agriculture output for example might fall by 567% doesn't fall more it doesn't fall more because people still want to eat. So you still want to eat. It's more expensive to produce food prices go up and you can see a very strong price increase so potentially from the food security side, much more severe effects in Nigeria for example. So that's what depends there on what economists call the price elasticity demand. So you get this output contraction, a response on the part of consumers wanting still to have food, and that bids up the price and brings back some of the supply but at much higher who suffers from the higher price, of course it's the poor, the poor may spend up to 6070% of their of their budget on food at very low income level I'll be talking about $2 today poverty, for example, and in a few slides. So that a much bigger impact on the poor than the rich who may only spend five or 10% of their income on food. So that's the economic geography to this, and because all the regions are connected. When you, when your prices go up you contract output of something if you're Brazil or Argentina and you're exporting a lot of it will then other people share some of the pain, you export some of the cost of this. And if you're Venezuela and you're importing a lot of this stuff. It hurts because you're importing a lot of that pain. And in terms of higher prices so that's what we call the terms of trade, terms of trade improved for some regions declined for others. It's a wash globally, in terms of radar. So just a few words about poverty as I moved to the end of the talk. I thought about for a long time. In fact, that was before collaborating with you all that was my thing to work with household household economists and look at poverty and so that was an earlier sabbatical of mine. This book poverty in the WTO and after commissioning a dozen or more studies and trying to figure out what they were doing. I mean, Anders and I came up with kind of a simple approach in the spirit of the simple model perhaps now thinking about poverty. What's the, the way the easiest way to understand what's going on. And for that you want to look at the rich change in real factor returns. So this is wages say for unskilled labor and agriculture deflated by the real cost of living for a given household. And you can see that agricultural unskilled wages are rising live because you've got a pool more agriculture in that more more labor and agriculture. These returns fall and many other sectors why because the price of food is rising. And they may have less labor to work with in some of those other sectors. So they're 1010 factors here and those are the ones determining the incidents ultimately the poverty effects. These are the poverty effects and so these map to different household types there seven strata here agriculture, non agricultural self employed, urban labor rural labor transfer households they may depend on government or foreign transfers diversified households as well in rural. So the gray bar show you where poverty, how much a percentage increase in national poverty at the $2 a day poverty line the World Bank uses, and the bold, the, the circles show you the effects across different households. So there are very different effects depending on your composition of earnings which is how we've differentiated households. So agricultural households are differentially affected from labor households urban from rural and so on. The size of the circles just tells you how large that that population is in terms of the overall poverty in that country. And the homogeneous effect generally lift raising poverty exceptions are in cases where, for example, there's a, there's a large agricultural stratum big part of the poverty and price go up and ag unskilled wagers go up and at least not in a financial terms they're better off but maybe not in the health and a holistic perspective. I just want to wrap up here. I think there's a lot of scope for deeper collaboration between ecologists and economists and that's why Steve and Justin and I are so excited about this glass net effort. Cross scale analysis is important the global drivers, more and more important, but you can see the local stresses and responses are quite heterogeneous. And from those companies market mediated spillover so that's why we like to think about global local global as our mantra. You want to choose the right economic model to fit the job. Sometimes it's partial equilibrium high spatial details sometimes it's general equilibrium. Sometimes it may be both. And just once more there's a there's a link here for glass that has been mentioned a number of times. It's our, our hope to really strengthen these links between our community and yours. So thank you for the opportunity here. Thank you, Tom. And we'll, we'll have questions. We have we have scheduled a half hour to have questions and answers so save your questions, which you can either type into that question and answer or when we get there. Raise your hand or chat and we'll do that. But for that, like to turn it over to Justin Johnson. All right, well, thank you Steve for the introduction earlier and thank you Tom very much for having laid a lot of the foundation in your talk for what I'll be building on here. What I want to talk about is mainstreaming ecosystem services into economics by linking the global trade analysis project with a GTAT model that Tom just talked about with our integrated valuation of ecosystem services and trade offs invest toolkit put together here by the capital capital project. But to motivate this talk I want to start off with what are the big questions that are important to answer and then might we might be able to find new insights towards answering by linking these economic models with ecosystem service models. The first one of that is to simply how much does nature benefit from the economy, but a very focused subset of this question is, can we do that in measurable terms, in terms that finance ministers would understand for instance, well accounting for whole economy impacts. The second question I'll talk about is who loses or maybe wins when nature is depleted. We must assess fairness and we must consider economic activity that is hurt by the conservation actions we may be endorsing this is this is critical I will argue. Finally, the last question is what can we do about it how can policy protect nature's value and equity. And so this transitions away from the question of just how much does nature matter what's the big dollar value to okay it's important what can we do about it and economics, especially an economic model linked to an ecosystem service model, I think, offers some very specific suggestions and analysis routes for how we can assess specific policies. So just backing up in one for one moment here is, I think many on this call would agree that there is growing consensus that sustainability requires considering the entire bioeconomic system. And just in the history of this type of modeling. We've traditionally really I think started off by looking at the interconnection between the economy and the biosphere by thinking about how the economy affects the environment. And so that's human impact. And the classic example is land use change or deforestation. But really, the consensus that I think that is emerging is we need to broaden our perspective from just what is the impact to also what is the fork on value that the biosphere then would be back to the economy and this is a common understanding among many on this is that ecosystem services are one way that the biosphere provides valuable services to humans such as providing clean water and filtering out filtering out nutrients. And then the context that we're in today, I think we're specific to this call is talking about a new model that links g tap and invest cleverly named at the moment g tap invest. And this is this very frequently used economic model that has really become kind of the common language among people who do analysis of trade policy or land use change policy or things like this. How can we link that to invest. But just a shout out for us to this is that you know really this is this is newly possible. It's exciting. And we are now relatively recently able to calculate a high resolution, the resolution that's necessary for ecosystem service analysis at the global scale. And so the first study that showed this I was chopping primer at all 2019 put into science. And since then we've been able to build on this. And that's, that's exciting because now that we can calculate some of these things globally, we can connect them to global economic models. So g tap invest is built on this and we've currently included these five ecosystem services, pollination coastal protection, water, healed carbon storage and marine fisheries, and map them to inputs into the g tap model. And this is going to be something that continues to expand in detail but these are the specific linkages that we have currently pulled in, you know, some of these I think a pretty straightforward such as pollination, reducing the amount of wild pollinator habitat reduces pollination services that happen on cropland, and we can model how does that lower agricultural productivity of pollination dependent props using very detailed high resolution information. Without diving too far in though I want instead to focus on this not so much on the methods but on what are the answers to those questions that we can start to have a bit more insight into using these methods. The question is how much does nature benefit the economy. And this really was the first engagements that we had linking Earth and economy models and it was with collaboration with a net cap partner the World Wildlife Fund. And they commissioned us to answer the question of how much does nature matter. Another way of thinking about this is that bottom part of the linkage for how biosphere feeds value back to the economy. Who would we put a dollar value on that. Now of course we recognize that GDP is a very imperfect measurement, but still it can be a very persuasive measurement and so we wanted to see if we can connect an economic model and an environmental model, and have a way of calculating GDP. And so we put out a couple of reports under the global futures moniker, and we analyzed two basic scenarios of business as usual one. What would happen if we projected current trends forward on things like land use change or greenhouse gas emissions. But then we also created a scenario that modeled global conservation or a success story of what happens if we have much more sustainable consumption stabilization of land use change and meeting Paris like agreements on climate change. And so just to give you a flavor of what the model looks like for each of those two scenarios we have a different land use map, which at a global scale of course you can't see much. But this is the basic input into invest is these 300 meter in this case gridded maps that that show an actual landscape. And from that we then calculate, in this case here the pollination value under the two different scenarios. So, an important thing to note here is both of these scenarios meet many other goals like food security they produce enough prices have changed to reflect the fact that people do want to eat as Tom said. And what we find here is given the land use change that results from this, what are the different amounts of pollination services that are given to the economy. So when we reduce natural habitat, where does this cause a reduction in value. But the answer to that question then is first towards what WWF wanted us to assess was does nature matter. Well, yes, following the global conservation scenario avoided about 10 trillion and losses by 2050 compared to business as usual. And I want to know this is an extremely conservative estimates, because we only were modeling a very small subset of ecosystem services and consistently chose the, just the, the tightest claim that we could assess for which there was strong evidence. But a second message came out of this is that not just that the difference between business as usual on the left and global conservation on the right here. The biggest difference big is we found that the difference was biggest for low income, less extent low middle income countries, and this can be seen here that the change of a large loss under business as usual that that is felt by the low income countries here in the red bar. The change upwards have the greatest percentage increase in these countries so not only do low income countries depend the most on nature. They also benefit the most from policies, in this case just our global conservation policy that are aimed at protecting ecosystem services. So that basic finding led to a second question, which is who loses or wins when nature is depleted we started to see that there in the, in the fact that low income countries benefit the most. This led to a very fun engagement. Many of you may be aware of the dust scoop every view it's landmark study showing how our economies rely on nature is an excellent synthesis of what we know. Shout out to a net capper Emily Mackenzie was critical in that effort. One of the main messages is that nature is especially important to low income individuals. And so we had a fun opportunity to provide evidence into that report we're commissioned to run our G tap and best model to assess very concretely how to different countries or even different parts of the economy, gain or lose natural value under different scenarios or policies. And so this was included directly in the dust to review, buried into box 14.3. But just to show you what those results say, this is the same image but just a bit more detail is that not only do ecosystem services matter most for the poorest countries. It doesn't matter, especially more when we cross tipping points. This is one of the key things that the dust group of review wanted to assess is not just what's a small change on the economy, environment have on economic performance but what if open I won't get into the details of that but we see that differentiating by income group crossing tipping points in forestry pollination and fisheries resulted in in aggregate very large values 2.7 trillion GDP lost per year. But we see that is a much bigger loss for the low income countries on the left of the left side here. This is particularly true then in Sub Saharan Africa and South Asia. Another just important note here that I want to keep making is this again as a highly conservative estimate. For many reasons, including your we did not include climate change our goal was just to assess what is the loss from biodiversity and ecosystem services excluding climate change. And so that leads to the last question is how can policy protect nature's value and also the equity that we have in it. Here we engaged with the World Bank to assess how specific policies can mitigate these losses from ecosystem services. It started out by engaging in discussions to identify what are those policies that on a day to day level that organizations like the World Bank would be thinking about. One of our first findings is as we started to enumerate those is they could be modifications in all the any different part of this interaction between the economy and the biosphere. So that led to us needing to improve our models for them to be able to incorporate the different things that they might change. And in particular, I promised I would have any methods in this talk that I failed. And the particular method we will talk about is we didn't realize we really had to endogenize endogenize the relationship between changing prices and economic activity. And how does land use change things like agricultural expansion or pasture land expansion. How can that be included in the model endogenously. In the being that cap we defined these curves which captures that which reflects the natural land converted on the horizontal axis and the land rental rates, specific for different geographic regions, based on high resolution data. And so that's another paper that we'll be having coming out on that but it shows yet another linkage between these different scales. So what this with that methodological piece in place we could then define different nature of smart policies, but there's much information here but it I think can be summarized down into repurposing agricultural subsidies in different ways. Coming up with payments for ecosystem service programs, we're thinking about where we can invest in research and development increase egg yield and thereby reduce expansion of egg natural lands. So we combined all of these different policies into different packages. And what we found these different combinations of policies is shown here. It shows two aspects of performance on the horizontal axis, the avoided natural land conversion percent. When we implement these policies, and then what is the change in real GDP relative to a business as usual under that policy. Removing subsidies is here in in black P2 is a local PS payments for ecosystem service program and then the blue one is a global one. And so we see that there are indeed wind winds, it goes up in both GDP and natural land that is conserved. And not surprisingly when we layer in additional things and put in all the policies together we see the greatest performance in the combined scenario. An important thing to note is that when we consider this especially when we consider research in development benefits. This is something that again reiterates this message that investment in ecosystem services and the things that protect ecosystem services is most important for low income countries. We see that here on the left is the policies with that are excluding research and development and we see the benefit light blue to low income and middle income countries is larger. And when we shift upwards over here by including research and development that gap persists and we see that the low income countries have the greatest to gain by I'm taking on that policy package. I'll end with one last bonus policy very very briefly. And this is representing where we're hoping to go soon as what is the cost of achieving 30 by 30 is one of the many ambitious land protection targets that has come out. And what was very nice about endogenizing land use changes we can now also assess these large policies that may reduce the amount of land available to the economy. We did this by assessing where is their conflict between agriculture and our definition of gridded goal of, you know, where you would protect to meet your 30 by 30 commitment. And this was something that then shifted our lands apply curve and built on our ability to endogenize these effects. The takeaway that I want to leave you with is that it turns out the cost of achieving 30 by 30 in this modeling framework. We see is something that comes to almost exact compensation for the loss in ecosystem service value under business as usual. So in other words, I'm sorry, I said the wrong so protecting ecosystem services has a gain to the economy, but then taking land out to meet a 30 by 30 goal has a cost which is roughly the same size as the benefit we had in previous studies I mentioned. But when we start to dig into this in specific countries, specific regions, we see that it is not neutral across the globe. It's low income countries that have, yes, the greatest gain from protecting ecosystem services, but they also have the biggest shift left words here costs incurred by protecting that land, and it is not neutral for them it's very costly. And so that's the message I want to end with this thing thinking about the equity considerations for these costly policies, meaning 30 by 30 goals is something I think we need to think about quite a bit. So with that, thank you so much for the opportunity to talk and I think I'll pass it to Steve to go to our, our next person. Thank you Justin. And again, if you have questions, feel free to type them in the Q amp a and we'll also take questions live after our third speaker, which is Kathy clean. So Kathy, over to you. I'm going to turn myself up here. Welcome to Ithaca. And my office at Cornell. I, let's use this. That doesn't seem to want to be full screen. So I'm really pleased to be here and be part of this. I view myself as somebody to kind of raise some discussion, comment briefly and basically be a major cheerleader for much of what we've heard in these previous two conversations so I was tasked with the discussion of discussion of the role of economics and bringing the value of nature into policy. In doing that, I thought about what what again what I want to do is is contribute to the conversation do it briefly and then let everybody have lots of chance to weigh in. And I decided to try to do this in three ways. First, I'm going to start with the theme. And I, my theme is going to be. Do we need to should we talk be talking more about changing the framing and the conversation that we have about economics and the value of nature and I'll talk about that in a minute. And then I have three topics that I think are more directly related to my charge. And I'm going to talk about the role of economics shaping environmental policy in the US context. I'm going to talk about moving away from GDP as our single and only metric. And then I'm going to riff on some things that I think economists can and should do in order to move on those agendas. Okay, this theme that I wanted to share to get discussion on. So we all read have read for years and years newspapers we've taken economics classes. And we see a daily deluge of reporting of economics statistics we see quarterly GDP we see world GDP we see jobs reports you play inflation reports, so on and so forth. And most readers presume, I'm going to argue that that's because those things are incredibly important for human well being. Basically, if this is what's always being reported on the nightly news, I think the implicit and often explicit messages that therefore is what economists think most matter for us to pay attention to. And consequently anything that makes those indicators worse off are bad for us. We can't do such and such because it will hurt the economy are the kinds of arguments we often hear. I think that economists might do better or I wonder if we should not change our conversation to think about different messages. So let's run in here and alternative statistics and headlines topics. Suppose instead of GDP metrics every quarter, we had quarterly change in the stock of our national capital. If we had worldwide changes in the stock of our national capital, if we had green GDP estimates that included many of the type of ecosystem services that we heard about in the last presentation that that Justin did so so carefully. He regularly pummeled with Lorenz curves describing the state of distributional equity, ecosystem service values, and so on. Would then the implicit message be, wow, economists are telling us it isn't just market activity, but it's the quality of life and metrics associated with the quality of life that matter. And make those indicators worse are therefore bad for us. And instead of saying we can't do something because it will hurt GDP or some other indicator. Maybe the message would then become if we don't do this, the quality of life in this country and elsewhere will decline. I've been really intrigued by the fact that we in my lifetime have changed the framing and conversations in some important areas. When I was a kid smoking cigarettes in public areas was presumed to be the norm. You'd have gotten punched in the face if you'd have asked someone not to. That whole notion is completely flipped on its head at least in the US and some other parts of the country. We have changed the notion of what is what is acceptable. And, and what we the any conversation we might have about smoking is secondhand smoke causes all these problems and that's why we don't have it. There's a huge change in littering and the notion about the acceptability of littering. I'm not sure how those conversations and what data and or role economics had, if any, in making those changes. But I'd like to raise the question of whether that isn't something that we can and should be doing more. I think many economists help reframe the conversation regarding the value of nature and the importance of preserving nature. I'm going to come back to that in each of my three sub bullets. So, number one topic I wanted to talk about is the role of economics in US environmental and federal policy. I will go through very quickly and sorry these are kind of ugly slides, but I have found that I think there is a large part of the environmental and to some extent economics community that doesn't understand how really important values on benefits and costs, just like the I've heard from both Tom in the studies that he provided, and Justin on the at the world scale, just how important those numbers are in changing regulation. How does that happen. In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was president he he issued the first executive order that said, regulatory action at the federal level shall not be undertaken, unless the potential benefits to society of regulation outweigh the costs. Benefits need to exceed costs. This notion applied to all major federal regulations, which were over $100 million in magnitude, which is the vast majority of them. Now there are many cases where there are requirements in place under legislation or statute that they can't make decisions based on this trade off. Nonetheless, this started a complete change in the framing and the conversation about about what economics can and should do. Clinton and Obama both continued that basic concept with some changes. Trump even continued it, although he tried to muck up with some other things that have now been undone. Importantly, under the Biden administration, there is now a major effort to modernize benefit costs analysis and and undertake regulatory reform in ways that not only focus on economic efficiency, it is not taking that away. The benefits exceed costs, but also bring into play environmental justice and distributional impacts. This stuff is important. It isn't just in a bunch of buildings in Washington DC. A really nice opinion piece was just published by Alam Garland just came out a month or so if you haven't seen it. I encourage you to read it. He explains what a vital role cost benefit analysis play has played in US policy. Al is essentially the chief economist at the US Environmental Protection Agency. He describes how these rules have in fact changed policies that they have changed regulations and he talks about the fact that most of that is done in federal offices during, before and after benefit cost is done and then displayed transparently to the public. The point again being that this matters. It changes and he has a number of fascinating examples where they both in tightened regulations because of the data they had and in other cases changed regulations to make them more cost effective. He also talks about a variety of problems. I won't talk about those here and puts out a call for economists and others to help improve those problematic areas. He notes that economists need to reemphasize the efficiency role of benefit cost analysis, build awareness among decision makers that there are scientific underpinnings. But he also emphasizes as many, many economists do that while benefit cost analysis is critical for thinking about economic efficiency to the total winners. Are they able to compensate losers is the value of the pie bigger than it was before. That is only one decision metric that should be used. It is very reasonable and appropriate to think about things like equity and to not muck those two things up together. Second, I want to talk a little bit about this idea of moving away from GDP and incorporating more into it than simply market values. Let me start by saying that the report that Justin described in all the work with the economic value of nature and in that cap last night is incredibly valuable. It is a huge contribution. What they're doing as much as I can understand in at least many of the examples I've seen so far is correctly identify the effect on GDP and else and and other efficiency metrics of ignoring the value of ecosystem services pollinators. Every pollinators those are worth things and in fact our GDP metrics would be lower without them. This is a huge and important start it's really exciting it's it's we're seeing them do this it is is what we've long needed. They are quick to note that there are many ecosystem services they're missing that is not a criticism they got it up and running, and now they're they're looking to add and that that is fantastic. What I want to talk a little bit about is the issue or the questions about ecosystem services that have clear market impacts or footprints and including those communicating those and using those in decision making versus those that do not have market type impacts pollination services is an excellent example of one that does it's you can see impact on yield you can see impact probably if you have if you have to do less pollination, you save costs. There are many ecosystem services or that that could potentially be very valuable that do not this is well known in economics we talk about these non market values biodiversity and cultural values are just two of them. Both of those very much belong in quality of life metrics in economic welfare analysis is another way you could say it. But many people think about them a little bit differently, and I think they resonate a little bit differently to policymakers, and I think we need to discuss that and have a framing for how we, how we talk about those things. So I, as I was listening to the incredible examples that Tom had. I was, I was thinking about his heat stress example so I quick type this out so that this isn't so forgive typos and errors in logic and thinking but. So, what what they've done here is amazing again let me be very clear, taking a using the GTAC framework to think about what's going to happen to labor productivity around the world. As heat stress increases, how that's going to be differentially impacted what that's going to do to it's it's phenomenal it's incredibly important. You know, it's easy to sit on the sidelines and critique I'm like okay that's critical. But wait a minute that misses stuff. This is health impacts, these workers are sick, maybe. Maybe they have headaches, they take Advil, they go to the doctor more you get heat strokes and you okay. Well those are marketing type things we can measure. So I think this stuff seems to me to clearly belong in a full accounting. But then I'm thinking well you know, go beyond that. There's also things that are truly not market, for example, how much would you be willing to pay, not to feel rotten, not to have heat stress above and beyond what it would cost to get some Advil and take all of those things belong in welfare estimates that's a consumer surplus value. How much should you be willing to pay so your kids I couldn't even finish the sense, so your kids can feel at full attention in their classes and not be stressed by all of those pieces conceptually are very much part of values and welfare and doing a better job of people like me that live in the in economics about about talking about the fact that all of these things matter. Those that can be measured somewhat in markets and those that are purely outside market systems. Okay, I'm sure I'm running out of time but this is basically my last slide. I started to make the list it's very incomplete. What things can an account and should economists do. Well, we definitely need to work much harder on distributional impacts metrics measures and the data to populate them at different levels again Tom showed us some great examples of the kinds of things that can be done. We need to do a lot more of that we need to focus on the kinds of questions that that need answers, not just those that can be answered with specific time series and panel data sets. And not only I would argue those that can be answered with non controversial benefit approaches so for example here I'm thinking a huge literature and environmental economics has now built up on using hedonic values. How much do housing values change how much the land values change as a response to some externality or public good. That is critically important work, but it misses a bunch of stuff. And that other stuff we need people working on to those hedonics those kinds of rage risk studies miss all the other benefits and values that cannot get incorporated. And basically I think Tom and Justin just start to need to start making a long list of what they need economists to do and and get us all to get our graduate students to do it. And with that I will stop. And thank you very much for having me here today. Great, thank you Kathy and thanks to Tom and Justin earlier so we now have a little bit shy of a half an hour. It's time for questions and the answers. I would encourage everybody to type in their question into the Q amp a you should see it on your resume folder there. And so please, please type in we've got a number of questions there and I'm going to start with the ones that have come in. I'm going to try to paraphrase them but if the person who I am saying this for wants to follow up and clarify or if I didn't get it quite right, please do so. Anyway, the first question is from Marcelo Hernandez Blanco and it says either question for me or Justin Justin I'm going to turn it to you first. So how about ecosystem services we oftentimes kind of give them a maximum quantity or quality of service that the system can provide. Could you please reflect on how to best assess the change in the value of ecosystem services related to some kind of change in ecosystem health, however you wanted to find that change in the quality or the quantity of services. I'm happy to start on that. Well, I think Steve you may have some ideas too. But what I would say is this is a really good question, you're focused pretty much within the ecosystem services community of how do we deal with continuous changes I would say, rather than thinking about land is shifting from being fully natural to being the most ecosystem services to some sort of degraded state where it offers no ecosystem services is have intermediate classes would be one way to do this. Where we have different management regimes, model this different land use land cover classes have this then you know result in different levels of ecosystem services which would then be tied into the economic model components. There needs to be done on that point I think a lot of existing ecosystem services have assumed either fully provided or not. But, but I think it's a really good point, and it also leads to some, I think, possible, you know, effective policies of how do we not just prevent land from being converted from natural to say agriculture, but how do we do it in a way where the agricultural activity on it is, is not as damaging itself and this is again it would be another one of those sort of intermediate cases that it's not the full provision of ecosystem services but may well be critical to the answer. As I was mentioned, I'll pile on top. Thanks, Justin. The, I think this is a great question because what it says is, you know, the world is actually shades of great it's not black and white, and it's Justin just said it's not like either all egg or, you know, pure nature. You can think about alternative practices within agriculture that both modify the yields that you get as well as impact the water quality or the habitat value of this and so I think our challenge frankly in the system services community is, is figuring out like how do we accurately model those, those shades of gray and how many of them can we actually incorporate into the analysis and as Justin knows this is a, we can greatly expand the complexity analysis because we're thinking about many many more possibilities than that, you know, it's much simpler if you just modeling black and white but of course, you know, a lot of the interesting aspects of this as you pointed out, what's all really do come in this, you know, thinking about how do we, you know, how do we shift practices, for example, and get some of the, you know, aspects of both food production as well as in biodiversity habitat. Okay. Marcel please feel free to add in if we haven't hit directly on your question. But otherwise I'll move on to the next question. Okay. Next question is from Rob. And he asks about how can we incorporate. Rob Griffin, are there gaps you see an incorporating marine and coastal ecosystems into this type of model. That open to any of you all. We start just because we have included that in one of the prior versions of G tap invest. We looked at it from a very simplified angle, again just looking at coastal protection value we identified which grid cells, which kilometer segments of the coast, go from not at risk to at risk under different climate scenarios, as well as the different scenarios of where we lose marine habitat. So this then we charted through how does this have an impact on the GDP that is present. Once you specialize it within a certain distance from the coast. This is really a blunt instrument. And I think better understanding the full complexity of the coastal models that you're referencing Rob, I think is a key shortcoming at the moment. So, I guess my answer to that also would be, you know, net cap is a network, and class net is a network of networks. And thinking about how we can engage with experts like you, who know about these things is sort of an immediate next step. It's, it's definitely building that network so that the experts on that topic can show us and tell us what is the right way to add detail there because this is definitely a shortcoming. But maybe I'd even point to, you know, Tom, you perhaps know about some of the work that your team has done thinking about sea level rise and how it impacts some of the CG use of the integrated assessment models and be another ankle that I could see having more work done. Did you want to comment or. No, okay. Okay, our next question a little bit shifting gears but but in a way a little bit of a theme with with Rob and also with Kathy's comments about, you know, thinking about other, you know, like what's left out. So this is from bad and British cabbage, but I didn't mispronounce it too badly. But thinking about some of the neuroscience research that's been done at Stanford and then in closely related with natural capital project and thinking about the mental health benefits to individuals and are there ways to develop that measurement. And get this actually connected with this kind of modeling and into the economic mainstream and healthcare services. I'll jump in if that's if that's okay. Please. It connects to to, as you said, Steve Rob's Rob's question. And just, just in terms of Rob's question I mean one of the one of the first steps is to figure out what are all the ecosystem services associated with marine and coastal areas, which ones are monetizable by you know storm protection and therefore less loss of property. So the sort of work that that's been done but then there's a lot of other ones that relate to recreational use, walking on the beach, seeing the sunset, you know, all the sort of stuff. And then in terms of the, the, the mental health. This this is really hard to come up with metrics, but completely appropriate and correct to incorporate. That's one of the things that it from as an economist. So what do I mean by that. When we think about weighing policies as an economist we think about valuing things. We don't just mean cups of coffee pens and shoes. We mean all things that people value, and people highly value their health, they highly value enjoyment that recreation. So conceptually, when we are making policy decisions using benefit costs analysis, we should be incorporating those, those as well as how much aspirin we don't have to spend money on because somebody has a headache. That said, it's of course, hard to do. And I think as the research becomes more extensive as we can begin to get better sense of quantifying how to do it, or good substitute metrics for it, rather than always trying to put everything into one one frame. But it's a great question. And I think it's the important thing I want you to know is conceptually as an economist, it absolutely is on the table with the same level of value as anything else. It's just harder to do, but that means it needs to be talked about by people like you over and over again, and to keep reminding us that it is, it's real, and it's, it's about the quality of life it's about about our welfare. I'll just add I mean I this is a great question and it's one that we've been trying to deal with in the natural capital project you know really this this link to mental health benefits and and as Kathy said this is a extremely important component of the quality of life. And I think there's challenges here frankly for both the kind of the neuroscience community as well as the economist I mean you know for us for economists translating this into something the finance minister will relate to is is is perhaps critical, but as Kathy said there's a, there's certainly a conceptual framework here that that fits. I think for the neuroscience community, you know really showing what the change in nature that happens and then the to the change in mental health. I think that's really challenging. I know I know you would but I think it's as Kathy said I think this is incredibly important I think there is. You know this may end up, you know, five 10 years down the road be one of the more important areas of thinking about how this naturally benefits for us but we're, we're, we are not as far along on that for sure, as many other things. Okay, I'm answering some things. I'm answering some things online and you guys are going on that and, and when you're ready I'll chime in on a few things but keep going. Okay, Tom I'm going to, I'm going to have one more question. I'm going to, I'm going to just to tee you up I'm going to turn it over to you for a minute for for several of your responses but there's an interesting question it's it's directed to Justin but actually Tom I think both you and Justin should weigh in on this one. It's from Juliet Perch, who says, is the data for ecosystem service valuation and the results from your GTAP invest model. Are these precise enough to get information at the national and sub national level. This could be extremely useful for policy engagement national level but I guess the question is, how good are we right how, how precise is this is it is it is it ready for policy. The last bit of is it ready for policy that comes the expert done answering that question I'll just maybe offer the brief comment on how much information could we extract for specific regions. I mean, yes, in a sense, but we do have high resolution ecosystem service results and so any information that is based on that, you definitely could extract information for even very small sub national scales. The question though, is to what extent to the policies modeled, or the economic factors included to what extent are those accurate enough for national or sub national things I think the short answer in my estimate but I'm curious time to response are. If you accept and understand all of the input assumptions, they're pretty good at the national scale although our model is not at the sub national scale, and so there will not be a whole lot of information relevant at that factor. The last thing to say is that since coming out with some of this work at the global scale, one of the major sort of new things that I think we realize going to need to focus on, just based on who has reached out to us is having much more detailed national representations. We currently have a global GTAP model all of the regions are included. What if we wanted to zoom in on specific countries and so I think that's a clear emerging thing that might do then a better job of having national or sub national relevant outcomes. Yeah, I'll just join Justin's excellent response. And we've valid tried to validate these economic models which is not done nearly enough, but we find that the more we aggregate the better they do. So, explaining things that the global levels a lot easier than at the country level the country levels a lot easier than the region level. We're really struggling with validation of the gridded model what level at which it can be validated and where can we have confident predictions so that's that's where the science is on that right now. I think engagement with policy, it's a process, but seeing how much interest there was at the World Bank with the project that Justin led with the other with WWF before that with the other NGOs and investors now. There's a lot of interest and the way this usually works is, is, what's the case in that World Bank project. Justin and yours, my colleague here Purdue was working on that. They thought they kind of done the job. They delivered that to the folks the World Bank said no no no that's not what policymakers care about. We care about this over here and it's a back and forth back and forth and then they start delving into particular instances and saying well. What do you mean about redirecting these the spending from here to there that's not, that's not what we need. I mean something else so it takes. It's a process of iteration but engagement is the first step and I think that's great that there is. This is such a great opportunity for engagement along this along these lines. Tom you mentioned previously that you you were, you were commenting on other questions that have come in so I don't know if you want to fill in some other topics. Yeah, two things one question daily asked. Well, how predictable are these spillover so I was showing those spillover effects. Restricting groundwater withdrawals in one part of the country they spill over how predictable either how much confidence do we have in those and that's another way of asking that is, is really how well are we modeling those markets, because it's really, you know, in economic terms a question of kind of supply and demand elasticity. And if supply is very responsive in places that's one answer, demand is very everlasting that's enough so it comes down to getting those right at the right scale and that's something we're working wrestling with right now I think qualitatively we can say yes those exist but just by the by what we observe what we understand about basic economic logic but the predictability of those really depends on having a validated model validated at the relevant scale goes back to the comment I made earlier. I think we might be confident that some of those spillovers will occur overseas and some domestically. How much will move to which of the resource regions that's something actually we're wrestling with right now. The other point that came up I guess it's a kind of response to Kathy, just to say. So I like the way she's thinking she's saying okay, what's the next thing. The next thing is to engage with the public health folks, because they know a lot about the, you know, the costs the medical costs and some other aspects of this. And indeed they've already approached us we're, we've got to get this one thing out the door before we go there but I think that is the logical next step on the heat stress thing. And then move to the non market costs which are obviously super important in this case. So, I think, from my experience, you know, building this kind of global analysis over the last few decades and you know in the more the trade policy space. It's all about incremental progress and it's all about mobilizing a large network. Yeah, she's got grad students team has crashed. We need to mobilize them but also people around the world that the impacts are going to be largest in human topics we need people working grad students working there, faculty and researchers. So, I think it's all about mobilizing this large community. I know from working with the G tap over that community over several decades there 22,000 people and that network now. So, I think that this that's issued every couple of years is hugely rich as a result. Every, every couple of years, whole, you know, many, many of the country databases are updated. Nice peer reviewed that's what it's going to take in this space we're going to need to build that community, we're going to need to find develop a platform for them to share information to replicate what others are doing to critique it and extend it. In one week from today we'll be having another class that workshop. Anyone interested in that email me or go to the class that webpage or something but we'll get you on that list but that that workshop in a week is going to be on cyber infrastructure for collaboration in this way for for crowdsourcing this stuff I think that's what we have to do. Great, thanks Tom. I have a question here from your bond and you have a very long second and last name so I'll just say with your bond. I think putting the putting a trying to put a value on nature sometimes is criticized from in various outlets because there are so many frameworks and different values from different frameworks so sort of a plea it seems like maybe we're in the Wild West phase of this you know, what should we be looking at what's appropriate what's what's authentic. Well, I mean, yeah I think first the response is that we kind of are in the Wild West, we're just both a good thing there's a lot of new territory to cover, but also a challenging thing is that there could be many hard to explain forces and dangerous things to find in the new town we go to. I mean, I think some of the criticisms that I think are most relevant is over generalizing. We find results that are specific to the very detailed case that we spend a lot of time narrowing in on by assumptions and being very careful about what we're trying to say, but I see often a tendency for this then get expanded beyond the very limited set of circumstances that are very relevant. And I think that's been evident in some of the earlier work in ecosystem services at global scales to. So I think all those things remain very, very relevant. I guess just ever being vigilant when you're in the Wild West is obviously good advice. Okay. So I have a question from Manuel, this field run and then well asks. Is there a reasonable disposition at the policy level to develop and implement the actions proposed kind of in this panel, you know, are the scenarios of change will they be possible to an extent so this is not necessarily a question of the economics but I think it's. A question of we're trying to mainstream or actually put this into use like how far are we reasonable or realistic is it and and I'll add on to this which is, you know, Kathy you talked about changing the framing. It's like, so how can both the economic community and this integrated assessment community, but can we help in that and make it more likely that these things actually will lead to policy, better policy outcomes in easy question for you all. That's what I've been talking a bit already. We'll just briefly say something and see if it cues up any other responses is sort of the origin of some of the work in the, in the two most recent reports were sort of they came from this area, this question of how do we have an effect. And so, WWF was interested in this World Bank was interested in this because of some of the very specific international convenings were supposed to have happened already but because of coven haven't. They're, I'm not an expert on this but there are many others that have thought how can this type of report be used to inform those negotiations. Last thing I'd say and I think this was recorded so you can look at it but our workshop within glass net. Most recently that just finished did invite a bunch of experts in this topic policy experts people who are trying to go to those meetings and have that sort of impact. I think they had some really good thoughts on that. I see, but then, but then Tom also the comment on that. But yeah, diving in providing realistic results for those convenings is my, my thought. Yeah, I was just going to chime in the, my short answers I don't know, but a slightly longer answer is, I have seen incredible power of data. I think that's the power of the GTAP glass net network and the World Bank work and that in the report that Justin just presented getting a numbers out in front of people can make a huge impact on the conversation. And it focuses the way people think they then fight about the numbers, but that then also brings a more engagement and focus on it so in a sense, if this is, I think my, my, my, my suggestion is just do it and they will come. And, and that's really what, again, this World Bank work is the just having done it is, is phenomenal. I mean that report is and, and the glass net is what made it doable and GTAP invest marriage. So I, I, I'm very optimistic, having seen that that can be built and pushed and numbers, bad numbers, good numbers all numbers have a huge impact. And those are good numbers. I just had one more thing to that I think the policy process is unpredictable. And so you just keep plugging away working in the trenches get your numbers out there is that he says they're important. But that moment. When you have the reformable, you know, the performable moment Wall Street floods again or something happens that really gets people's attention. They, they really focus in on this, having the numbers there at that point's important so you don't know exactly what it's going to happen. Well I'll just say we're getting close to the end of time but I will just say I think actually we are at that moment is, is Justin well knows we've been and Tom you to we've been pretty much. The numbers out there and they will come and he happened. It has been a moment where a lot of interest has been generated and both in public sector so government agencies, agent, you know, international groups like the world, you know, international agencies like World Bank. And also in the private sector increasingly. And so it is the moment, you know, in the scale of the problems that we're facing with climate change and we've all seen the extreme weather this summer. There is increasing interest in this area obviously and, you know, it's great work that Tom, Justin, Kathy and many others in the community are doing to, you know, show what the impacts of good decision are for decisions and how much difference that's going to make both to people now, but you know, future generations so anyway, we're, we're at, basically at the end of time, I just like to thank Tom and Justin and Kathy for their, their excellent presentations and insights and also to the audience here for excellent questions. And if we didn't get to your question and you want to follow up, you know, they're, please, please contact us at the natural capital project and we'd be happy to keep the dialogue going. Yeah, thank you all again very much. I don't know, Mary, there's anything else you want at the end, but if not, I will say thanks and have a good rest of your day. Yep, thank you everybody.