 Alright, it looks like our numbers are slowing down so we're going to go ahead and get started. As you can see on our screen we have a lot of great speakers today. This is the webinar on buildings. This chapter specifically in America's zero carbon action plan. We have Benjamin Prosky from the American Institute of Architects in New York and the Center for architecture who's going to kick us off. Following that we have Professor Jeffrey sex from the president of SDSN and Columbia University, and then Lori care from the LQ policy lab and Roger plat from the US green buildings Council will dive into the specifics of this chapter of following Professor sex, and then we will have a Q&A at the end. Be sure to insert your questions into the Q&A box throughout the entirety of the webinar we will be looking at those and we will ask those at the end. And for those of you who are looking to get a continuing education credits. You can do so using the form that has just been put into the chat, you must attend 75% of the webinar and complete that form to get your continuing education credits. So without further ado now that all the housekeeping is out of the way I'm happy to pass it off to to Ben to get us started. Thank you so much and I'm so pleased that we're collaborating on this and Ben Prosky executive director of AI in New York and the Center for architecture. So if you're not familiar with us as professional association representing and supporting designers and architects through advocacy continuing education and advancing the work in critical areas such as climate action and resilient design. This chapter has close to 6000 members who through over 25 program committees organize educational events workshops and discussions. AI and noise partner organization the Center for architecture focuses on public outreach, reaching beyond the architectural community to all who experienced architecture to educate and activate people to understand how design is a powerful tool, which is the foundation for living, learning, and even more. I want to briefly tell you about a new project that we are about to launch. Now that we are inching past the federal elections, few on November 16 AI and why and the Center for architecture in collaboration with MIT civic data design lab are launching a new project that looks forward to New York City's next mayoral election in 2021 visualize NYC 2021 the project will present a series of questions, studies, and data sets that will help us understand what issues are germane to design and the city and what needs to be addressed by a new administration and city council. We are starting this project a year ahead of these unprecedented city elections, as not only will the mayor and all the borough presidents change, but more than 40 city council seats will turn up. So I invite you to join us via visual eyes NYC net and help us establish design agenda for our next local administration. I also want to make sure that you are aware that in 2018 AI national our parent organization comprising of around 100,000 members across the world actually make climate action one of its top priorities. I was thrilled to serve on the national working group that developed a climate action plan released earlier this year, and the plan asserts that we must declare an urgent climate imperative for climate reduction. We must transform the day to day practice of architects to achieve a zero carbon and equitable resilient and healthy built environment, and we must leverage support for all potential partners, including peers, clients, policymakers and the public. I want to download that full plan at a.org. And I think it's so important, right that architects do declare that they have a role and do declare that they don't have a role only themselves but as part of a larger group. But now I want to introduce our wonderful speakers today. Her FAIA lead AP has extensive experience in urban sustainability policy. She is president of Lori Kerr policy lab and a senior fellow at USGBC and a strategic development fellow at CUNY building performance lab. Formerly as deputy director for green building policy at the New York City mayor's office of long term planning and sustainability under Michael Bloomberg Kerr help develop plan YC New York's influential sustainability plan. And until recently, she served on the AI New York board and is still an active member and our organization advising us on policy and working with our committee in the environment and others. Roger Platt is senior vice president for strategic partnerships and growth at US Green Building Council. He is the immediate past president of USGBC also. In addition to his role advising the CEO on mid to long term strategy matters. He also leads USGBC's lead for cities efforts and business development in New York City region. And in addition to the many impressive positions Roger has held and holds, I am particularly proud that he is a board member at the Center for architecture. But before we hear from these speakers, I am pleased that we will first hear remarks from Professor Jeffrey sacks. I know Jeff needs no introduction for this crowd. But before I pass to him, I first want to personally acknowledge the incredible work he has done as an economist turned climate action leader via his work at Columbia University and the UN and beyond. Jeff devotion to affecting change in a sustainable equitable way globally has elevated his message. In 2017, the Center for architecture was thrilled to honor Jeff at our annual gala. We were so encouraged by Jeff's message at the event, which I just revisited via video, and I quote from Jeff. Jeff, I cannot tell you how many politicians I speak to, who have no idea just how key the work of designers is in helping us live better, all while reducing our impact on the planet. Thank you for being such a wonderful advocate for design and a friend to our community. Jeff. Thank you so much what a wonderful introduction and how great to remember that such kind and exciting occasion together. And all the great work that you do. And indeed, we do live and prosper based on what architects and planners do. And I'm in the Upper West Side right now at home. And we live off of a wonderfully designed grid that was designed more than 200 years ago and laid the foundations for Manhattan. And I'm lucky to be near a central park that enriches lives immeasurably. And so what good urban designers and visionaries do affects our world and our ability to thrive in it. And with 55% of the world and cities today, and that will rise to at least 70 I think even higher than that by mid century. Your work is absolutely essential. And as you're going to hear from Roger and Laurie in just a moment. It's also essential for our most basic challenge of having a safe climate, not only nice places and productive places to live, but because the role of cities in the climate challenge is absolutely huge. The role of the building sector, and the energy used, whether in electrification or direct heating and burning of heating oil or natural gas. The role of transportation. These are fundamental challenges for the safe climate agenda ahead. We started the project to map out a pathway to net zero emissions by mid century. And more than a year ago, bringing together Laurie and Roger and experts from across the country, knowing that we would have an election and and a government and I hope to utterly for a new government and we have a new government now and do president and we are becoming Congress and president elect Biden is very clear that we need to reach net zero emissions by mid century. I think everybody knows where that guideline comes from the Paris climate agreement calls on the world to make all efforts to keep warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius relative to the pre industrial level. We see documented that in order to have a likely chance of success that just means two thirds by the way, we have to decarbonize by mid century latest. And of course, under Trump we were going deliberately from the top in the wrong direction at profound danger to the US and the world. There has been good news in this awful year of COVID there has also been good news politically in that Europe adopted a European Green Deal to reach net zero by 2050. Just in recent weeks, China, at the UN General Assembly, President Xi announced reaching net zero by 2060. It's a big commitment. They're going to even accelerated I believe to 2050. Again, under new Prime Minister Suga and Korea have also announced reaching net zero by 2050. This is all a prelude to cop 26, which will be in Glasgow in November, where all nations of the world including the US as a member of the Paris agreement once again must commit to this trajectory of reaching net zero. Our zero carbon action plan Z cap which you can find online and in the chat you'll find the links to that is the result of collaboration as I said across more than 100 experts across the United States, looking at how the US can do this. Basically, and just within two more minutes, we need to decarbonize the power sector. So to move from coal oil and gas is powered generation primary sources to wind solar hydro as the core of the power generation sector. We need to electrify everything that can be properly electrified including of course like duty vehicles and we need to use the clean power to produce synthetic fuels, green chemistry, for example, hydrogen loop or synthetic methane or synthetic ammonia or other fuel carriers for certain heavy industrial uses, but the name of the game is clean electricity and electrification to a maximum extent, plus some clean fuel carriers gas and liquid made with clean electricity. That's the basic story. We have the time to do it between now and 2050 but we have to hurry every new investment has to be pointed in the right direction so that when the old infrastructure rolls off. The new infrastructure that rolls on is clean green and oriented to net zero by 2050. We show, and especially our modeling team shows that the costs of this are extremely modest. We have the action of 1% of GDP per year to achieve a safe planet and cleaner air and multiple co benefits of a better life. So it's not a cost at all, taken in the big picture. And this is the story. We are presenting this to AI a today, we will be presenting it to members of Congress and of course to Vice President Biden's transition team. I believe that it can be an important basis for what will be intensive deliberations and policies in the coming year to show the practical pathway to climate safety as part of a world that is taking such efforts together. So without further ado, let's turn it over to the real experts here to Lori and to Roger and thank you again Ben for hosting today's workshop. Okay. Thank you so much Jeff for getting us started. And I was also going to mention the fact that four major countries that had all announced recently this remarkable commitment to 2050 or 2060 in the case of China. Very bad look for any country to be just, you know, 10 years later on these so I don't think I don't think it'll stick there for very long. But in all events, I want to start by, if we can just go to the next slide. I just want to start by emphasizing that a lot of the, the, the way that this overall plan has been developed, and a way that the impacts have been estimated to these four key pillars that are identified here, electric decarbonization electrifying everything that's electrification energy efficiency. And I just want to emphasize here, the degree to which the building sector work is very dependent on the work of other sectors is very dependent on the greening of the grid. In order to accomplish much of what we need to accomplish. And we're also very dependent on energy efficiency, both in our sector and in the transportation sector and if we just go to the next slide I'll just, I think that's so important. Here we have a situation where the overall impact of carbon emissions in buildings. And if we're just talking about the actual emissions directly from buildings, when they are burning fossil fuels on site. Thus, that alone gets you to 12% of our entire footprint being from buildings. However, when as in the second graph you allocate the amount of electricity being used already in buildings, it jumps to 32% of our entire carbon footprint as a country. Now, I want to emphasize how much that is by just mentioning that the residential sector alone if you just look at the amount of carbon emissions occurring both on site and indirectly through through the burning of fossil fuels at utilities that serve residential neighborhoods. You have a higher level of carbon emissions than the entire economy of Germany, and almost twice the carbon emissions associated with the economy of Brazil. So we're talking about a tremendous amount of carbon emissions, and we're also talking about an amount for which energy efficiency is going to get us part of the way. And I just want to highlight in the next slide and we can go to it. Just how significant this is this is three graphs would show by 2050, the way that either under a baseline or business as usual approach under an electrification only approach, or under an approach that includes substantial amounts of energy efficiency and electrification. And what it what it looks like in terms of electricity use, and you can see that the extraordinary amount of electricity use that will be necessary if everything's being electrified and cars are being electrified but also their stationary equivalents buildings are being electrified. And the surge in electricity is huge, and that in the short term can cause a lot of carbon emissions, and also can cause greater expense in building out the green grid huge additional expenses these graphs from an exercise in the Boston metropolitan area. And by the Boston folks to determine that if we just went with full electrification without concurrent energy efficiency, especially in the early years, the costs associated with building out the grid the additional transmission costs, etc. That could be as much as 300% greater than without the energy efficiency. So, just as we are very dependent on the greening of the grid, which will be done by the energy sector, I believe that the overall project is very, very dependent on our publishing a great degree of energy efficiency under the models in Jeff sacks approach we're assuming to get the numbers we want that it'll be a 40% per capita energy efficiency goal. So electrification, yes, possibly even the most important thing, but energy efficiency a huge piece as well. Next slide. Now, I want to introduce Lori's portion of this in which she will take you in fast and furious style through the five key points that we believe are necessary to get to net zero that what she's talking about our policies that will need to be implemented by an significantly complex alphabet soup of agencies at the federal level, the state level, and at the local level. So here in Washington where I am, the federal government advances the energy efficiency and electrification of its buildings through more than 12 different There are different agencies that have huge, huge footprints in terms of their buildings. There are different agencies that deal with private sector buildings that deal with public sector buildings like the private sector buildings like the energy star program. Public sector buildings like the Department of Energy State energy program. There are also land use laws that affect transportation and other things related to the built environment. There is also and this very important tax policy that that does in some cases engender either more emissions because it engenders more of the sprawl type of development that we're that we're experiencing historically or Fannie Mae has become a positive force it subsidizes mortgages but it also encourages greener buildings and you can get special treatment if you are an energy star or a lead building. So, finally, state local tribal territories all have their own building code by the way this is completely untrue in other countries where there's national standards for all of this. And so, as you're listening to what Laurie has to say, think about the importance of the national goal setting, whatever the challenges that the next president will have with Senator McConnell's Senate. There's great power in the role of goal setting and standard setting at the national level. And that's what you'll see from Laurie's description is what we're trying to put on steroids. So that leadership at the top, supported and implemented and creatively advanced also at local levels can be successful so with that I will turn it over to Laurie. Roger. I'm going to end thank you Ben and Jeff, and now I'm going to be fast and furious. I want to backtrack just a little to the four pillars that Roger mentioned and just talk a little bit more. Maybe quantitatively about how this works. So, this is a, this is a diagram showing how much easier it's going to be to achieve carbon neutrality in the building sector. Then we all thought it was going to be when we thought we were going to have to do most of it through efficiency. In recent years, the grid has started to become much, much greener. And now there's electrification on the horizon. For those of you who don't really understand that that well electrification means that we're going to stop burning fossil fuels in buildings for heating hot water and for cooking. And we're going to start to use heat pumps, which are very efficient, rapidly improving cost effective technology so these two emerging trends, the greener grid and cost effective efficient options for electrification. Now make a much easier decarbonization path possible. So let me walk you through this, how it works. The bar on the far left shows the relative emissions in the United States from electricity and fuel. The blue part is from electricity, a little over 60%. Let's assume we can electrify about two thirds of that so that electric part increases, and the fossil fuel part decreases that's the second bar. Why do we say two thirds. Well, it's hard to say but there are a lot of old buildings, it's expensive to transform them all steam heat might be particularly hard and expensive so just a guess, maybe we can achieve two thirds very cost effectively. Then let's say we cut energy use by 25%. We might be able to go to the 40%. But that takes you to the third bar, which shows we're down by 75%. But then here's the magic trick where the carbon neutral grid kicks in let's say we get 90% carbon neutrality. Then suddenly all that all those carbon emissions coming from the grid vanish and we're down to much less than 20% of our original carbon. So it's that 123 steps that gets us to very low carbon. And then the final last mile, which we don't know exactly what we'll need to do maybe carbon neutral gas, maybe carbon sequestration capture and sequestration, probably some sort of combination of those things but we can by the way already know how to do, we can get to very very low carbon, putting us in a very very good position by 2035 2040 to make it to get to that last mile. Next. So that's technically how we do it. Modernizationally, how do we do this in an enormous country. How do we make this happen with our 150 million buildings, 50 states and so forth. So we think we need an overarching structure, and particularly a carbon, a carbon neutral goal for America by 2050. This does not take Congress to set this it's like Kennedy said we're going to the moon. Congress did not have to vote that goal into place so even without Congress. We can set a carbon new neutral goal by 25 or the new administration can set a carbon neutral goal by 2050. Then I think we need the structures in place to make that happen. As Roger pointed out, there are just multiple overlapping jurisdictions and departments and agencies that will have to all be pulling together in the same direction to make this happen. So we think there needs to be either a White House office or I think Roger and I are in favor of a new cabinet department of climate and resilience that organizes this vast effort, including buildings. And then we think the administration has to create a detailed plan that harnesses the federal agencies, the states, and that it should report annually on progress. And the plan that we think will probably have to happen will probably include these five basic strategies that we're going to outline. One is retrofits in a stimulus package. Another is utilizing codes and standards, leading by example and promoting subnational action, R&D and American manufacturing and using the federal fiscal tools. Next. The first out of the gate, of course, is going to be a stimulus package. And we need, we know we need to jumpstart the economy. And we think that allocating a good portion of that federal stimulus package to renovation and electrification of buildings will make a ton of sense. First of all, it's very job intensive to retrofit buildings. Secondly, the jobs that are generally going to be created are good jobs, they're construction related jobs, and any legislation can make sure that they are equitably a portion to cross the population. Finally, they happen everywhere because buildings are everywhere, so those retrofits have to happen where the buildings are, they can't be outsourced. So it's going to be a very even stimulus for every part of the country. We think it should concentrate on two areas, low income housing to help people who are energy experiencing energy poverty. And we think that the buildings that serve the general public should also be preference because these are the buildings owned by the people and so if we're going to pay for them, the public hospitals, community colleges and so forth should be preference. Next. The biggest single thing though that we probably have to do is to establish a national energy code for zero carbon buildings and push for stronger appliance standards. The reason for this is that codes and standards are really the least cost path to an efficient decarbonized building stock. The reason for this is that it's much less expensive to build it right the first time then and add a small incremental cost to put in better low carbon equipment. Then it is to actually have to rip something out and buy a new product and put it back in. So if we can get the codes and standards right. We're on a very, very low cost path to decarbonizing the building sector. How does that work for new buildings. It's the they're the easiest part. So we think by no later than 2025 all buildings should be designed to be fossil free and carbon neutral, once the grid is green. And in addition an awful lot of carbon we haven't talked about this yet an awful lot of carbon is produced by the construction of buildings through the the mining and manufacturing of products used in buildings so the codes are going to have to start to regulate that and start to decrease that existing buildings are a little trickier, but they're changing all the time to their equipment wears out. Windows need to be replaced and when those things happen again is the cheapest time to make it much, much better so we think the codes are a great tool to make that happen and kind of quietly and inexorably move through that existing stock, making it closer and closer to carbon neutral as each incremental change happens. Finally, appliance standards. We've had appliance standards that have been adopted at the federal level in the last four years they've really fallen behind. So the first thing is to catch up. The second thing is to broaden and capture some pieces of equipment like computers and monitors that were never captured at the federal level, and then also to start to include carbon. Next, third piece is leading by example. So this has been something that most the federal government and most progressive state and city governments have done for a long time. They have led by example doing a better job with efficiency with their building stock, and this has gone on for many years. Why did they do it. One is that maybe six to 10% of the building stock in the United States and energy produced comes from their buildings. So you can achieve some reductions that way. And the bigger reason is that it transforms the industry. So if you have that big six to 10% chunk of buildings, going forward with progressive strategies, then you've got a lot of people trained, you've got a lot of call for better equipment, which then says a signal to the manufacturers to make more of that making that much much cheaper so it's really the industry transformation aspect of this that it's probably the more important thing. In the federal portfolio, we think it should commit to decarbonization by 2040 and that would include, you know, enormous things like the military. All those fleets of, of post office trucks and other trucks, all the buildings procurement could be a huge piece. The federal government should assist the state and local portfolios to achieve the same kind of reductions in an accelerated way. And also, I think the federal, we think the federal government has a role in supporting aggressive action in cities at states that want to go further faster in more, more aggressive legislation like local non 97. Next, we also think that we need to do much more with research and development education and supporting manufacturing of clean tech. Right now, about much less than 1% of American research dollars goes into the building sector. This doesn't cut it. We think that we need to bump that up to something like 5% of the federal budget and start really researching things like carbon neutral gases for buildings because we think there's going to be a need for that high temperature heat pumps that might be able to work in buildings that had steam, low carbon production products and other, other products that are going to be that will, will help us achieve all of this at much, much lower trouble and cost. Education we have to invest in the next generation of building efficiency and carbon professionals. There's really going to be a lot of jobs in this and we need a really knowledgeable workforce. We need to really start supporting entrepreneurship and manufacturing in this, even perhaps considering subsidies to American manufacturing to make this happen and resuscitate the rust belt and bring back jobs into places that are going to lose jobs in this transition. Finally, as Roger was suggesting, there are a lot of fiscal tools that the federal government can employ. There are always tax incentives. There could be loans or green banks and maybe one of the biggest of all is are the mortgage underwriting rules by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and then there are probably many, many other such tools that that could be utilized. I think that one last thought before I send it back to Roger, we analyzed what would happen, you know, they're most a lot of what we put forward, nobody would argue with who doesn't like a good stimulus package. But, but I think that there might be some people who are concerned about a stronger energy code that includes carbon. You looked at what if you didn't do that what if you were weak on that relied on the few progressive states to get you there and kind of lumbered along as we have historically, we found that by the time you get to the end of the road with those policies you're 35% away from the goal. And that's putting an awful lot of burden on possible strategies like carbon neutral gases or carbon sequestration and capture strategies that might turn out to be quite expensive. So it seems to us to be quite reckless to leave so much to the last mile and much better to start addressing this soon through better codes and standards where it's going to be a lot cheaper and a lot more predictable. Hi Roger. Okay, can you hear me alright. Thank you Laurie, and especially important where your comments at the end relative to the degree to which it's possible to take other paths and it's possible to be less aggressive in certain areas, but it's not possible to do that and there's no carbon zero by 2050. And again because all these different sectors are in a sense relying on each other there is no room for one sector to fail in any significant way. One of the things I didn't mention when I was describing the pie of carbon emissions from the real estate and construction sector was the huge amount maybe as much as 11 or 12% additional of the carbon emissions associated with the embedded energy based on the life cycle of the construction materials that are used. Now the reason I didn't mention that is that is implicit in and is theoretically at least included in the industrial portion of the pie chart that you saw. But it's again something that the real estate industry will need to be taking the lead on and it's something where again very progressive codes and specification principles will be really critical to reducing that piece of the puzzle. The other thing I wanted to just hammer on a little bit is the last piece of what Laurie was talking about in terms of tax and fiscal incentives. Now this is an area where historically the federal government has produced tremendous subsidies to the real estate industry, which have done a lot of good in terms of allowing more people to afford homes and 30 year amortized mortgages, the tax deduction for interest, etc. There's never been any meaningful condition to doing that, but it seems to me that if we are setting clear standards and goals. There should be a point at which banks begin to be nervous about financing those buildings which are not going to achieve those goals or could be out of compliance with those goals. And it's our view that if we could get to the point where, you know, for example, there are now laws in New York City that require that there be grades for buildings similar laws have passed in other countries. But what's interesting is that in other countries, including for example the Netherlands, major banks are now not willing to refinance buildings that achieve lower than a certain score. And so our vision also includes this idea that the remarkably lush amount of money and very attractive tax benefits that real estate has gotten in the past, need not be completely disconnected to to one of the greatest and most important goals of the country which is to get to carbon by 2050. And if we move in that direction banks will actually get out ahead of the regs they will be so cautious about lending on buildings that might go out of compliance that in our view they will start insisting that buildings owners prove that they're doing the right thing. The last thing I wanted to do which is again reinforcing a couple of points that Laurie's made. Really the first I want to go to is that in general with this exercise just so people understand, we're only talking about social equity issues largely as it relates to the displacement of jobs caused by this particular project we haven't taken on more fully the critical issues of poverty alleviation and social equity issues. However, we believe that the real estate piece of this has the greatest opportunity to have that impact as a dividend to the good work we're doing. So in other words the energy poverty reduction that Laurie talked about if you just look at the way it was done under the Obama stimulus package, the analysis done afterwards was very very encouraging as to the amount of long term savings and reductions in energy bills for those who can at least afford to pay them. And secondly we've done a tremendous amount of analysis relative to the overall job creation. If you look at the big picture plan it talks about 800,000 jobs being created by energy efficiency related issues, 500 almost of those are in the building sector, so 500,000 new direct and indirect jobs every year. So as a result of the amount of economic activity that will be necessary to achieve these goals. So I just want to basically end by pointing out that there's right before the COVID hit the fastest growing area for new jobs one of the fastest in the country was energy efficiency related jobs. And more than 2.3 million Americans twice the number of jobs held by people in the entire fossil fuels industry, and those energy efficiency jobs were among the most brutally ended by the COVID activity so we have a lot of people that are trained to do energy infrastructure who could be brought back into the economy in a very powerful and positive way. So, with those two points, I will just close by emphasizing if it's possible to do at this point that we had a very simple plan. We had five elements retrofits in a stimulus package and you heard Lori talk about that the codes and standards element of it, the leading by example and promoting subnational action the states and localities utility programs in advance in R&D at least five times the amount of investment that we've had in the past I think we can do with much more. And then finally the use of federal and fiscal tools. It's that easy. We think it can be done. And Lori, it's been a great pleasure working with you on this. Likewise. Wow, that was, that was efficient. It was a lot I sort of have to stop taking notes with my hand. But this is great. There are a lot of questions and we have about a quarter of an hour so we'll see how how rapid fire we can do with the questions I think it's so interesting the range of questions of course are now like relating to our political changes that are happening and how we're going to support this and then some of the things that I have to do with the plan itself. I'm just starting with one that has to do a little bit more about you know sort of political structures. What are the advantages of creating a climate and resilience department and cabinet position versus appointing a climate czar to work across existing programs at EPA, DOE, etc. Any thoughts on that. I'll take back at it. Otherwise, I'm happy to answer. You have to unmute yourself if you are. Why don't you take it. Lori and I felt strongly and of course the Senate to the decision of the apparent failure to get a Democratic Senate. You know, we'll put this on hold for a few years, but we felt it was extremely important that this not all be treated as one of these sort of short term stimulus things with a czar as though it's sort of some kind of working group or some issue we're talking about creating an institutional 30 year process with mammoth amounts of new programs at universities new new types of jobs we can't even imagine. And we're also talking about having a government that for the first time would really treat this as a statutory the absence of being able to do legislation on this, it's going to be very important to have an office in the White House that can over time transmute into, or ultimately become a cabinet level position, but we think anything short of that a czar really has, it makes it feel more like it's a short term challenge. And the amount of coordination that is going to be required here is is is almost staggering because you're looking at, you know, when you think of the federal departments that are going to have huge impacts on on America's carbon footprint department of transportation, department of energy, EPA, education, the, the military of course with its huge footprint, you know and on and on and on it goes. You've got to have, you've got to have kind of the administration muscle, all that goes along with having a department. And all those people who are paid to do all those complicated pieces of analysis and and making sure things actually did happen and measuring the impacts and adjusting the plans you know it's just the amount of you know bureaucratic muscle this is going to take is really going to be huge. I just would note that it is a very fair question because of course there are consequences to the lack of the Senate and we're happy to talk about that more, although we're here mainly to talk about substance of the proposal. So if you could going on this in the absence of that with through a federal through a White House office, and you could, you could create a plan, somebody asked me was 21 for 2020 January 1 2021 for the plan. And I was at Stefan you were absolutely right I meant January 1 2022. The plan would have to be delivered to the American people of, of how this administration proposes we achieve carbon neutrality. Laurie has an interesting parts of footnote that Jared, the presidents of Sun Law will actually be doing the plan by 2021. More challenging. So, how about one about something you know it within the plan. Does the Z cap have any component component to include embodied carbon already recognized to be nearly half of overall emissions tied to a building depending on the materials use. And this person's own research is revealing that LCA's are only considering fossil fuel use and material construction yet emissions due to extraction can far outweigh that. So and also that would is rarely a carbon neutral. Yes, we do have several proposals. The first is that the new energy and carbon code start to capture that. So exactly how that happens I don't know maybe it's a cap per square foot for different types of construction that gradually ratchets down, or maybe it's, you know, maximum amounts of emissions from concrete. There are many ways to do it we we propose for the first time that we shift from a pure energy code. So this is a big change to be an energy slash carbon code. And we'll deal with operational carbon, and with embodied carbon. So, I should conceptual change there. Go ahead. I was just going to say that recognizing this is a very, very sharp group of folks on this webinar I suspect for a variety of people, including for example, the chair of the AIA New York's coat that could probably write that provision better than us so there are people that are deeply committed to this with a lot of sophistication about this and I suspect some of them are on the call. And many of you are going to be necessary to hammer this out in reality we're just laying down the gauntlet in a way here, very broad brush. And then the second way that we're addressing it is through the research and development proposals that we're making and manufacturing and so forth that that we really push for research and development in this, not just in better materials and construction techniques and all of that, but also better knowledge in terms of these embodied carbon and better data and information on that that could help the industry move forward. We think of it as the embodied carbon discussion is being somewhat in its early phases, whereas energy efficiency is, you know, a very, very mature field. So we think that a lot of work has to go into making that grow up. But I don't think it's anywhere near too early for for proposals to go into the codes. There's a question here about demand flexibility. So what role could and should demand flexibility in buildings have to decarbonize it helps reduce over building renewable energy on the grid, but that is captured in the electricity sector. Does the roadmap factor in that. Well, I answered by saying, absolutely, that is factored in. And again, you know, pardon us if sometimes we have given more range to another sector than the building sector on this because that kind of demand response type of strategy is both a real estate strategy and an industrial strategy as well. So it's something that it's very much on our minds. And, but like a lot of this it's very challenging to because it's going to be so critical that kind of demand response type of work in the first 10 years, but then as we move to getting a greener and greener grid, we'll have other priorities but in this period where energy efficiency and and peak load reduction is at its height in terms of prioritization demand response one of the most critical ways of addressing there's one other proposal that we make. That is that new buildings should be capped in terms of their annual heating and their annual cooling loads very similarly to the passive house. That's what we do. It just keeps those additional heating and cooling peaks low, which, again, reduces the requirement to create an increasingly bigger grid. Well, to my to my friends in the commercial real estate industry Lori is not saying that if you have multiple floors of trading floors and everything else that suddenly that's going to have to meet a residential passive house standard that doesn't contemplate that so we're not we're talking about residential No, no, no, and only for heating and cooling loads, not for other building works recognize very widely in court in terms of, you know, the needs, because of the functions that are housed there in heating and cooling are mostly independent of function and can be addressed upfront and it's, we now know how to do it quite well. There's a question. Simple question that I always have and I think considering we're going into a new administration. This becomes relevant again. Do you have examples in other countries remember that we so used to look at other countries. That have that have been put into place that are maybe similar structure to what you're proposing. I think, particularly just adding to that, dealing with affordable dealing with public buildings. I'm just wondering about Nordic countries other places are there any examples you're aware of that might be interesting to look at. I would just quickly say that that that absolutely in every way we have learned a huge amount I personally was on the board of the world green building council which might sound a little less a territory to make it was just a lot of green building councils from around the world and we learned a tremendous amount from different parts of the world about what they're doing in all of these different areas, having said that the United States as we've all witnessed over the last four, last four days is an unusual beast in that every single city sometimes counties have their own building codes have their own laws relative to this just as they had their own laws related to how to count the ballots. That is not the case in other countries there are national building codes for most of the countries that we're looking to as models. And so the process of transitioning something in that way jurisdictionally will be will be different than in other countries and challenging. All right well sadly I was given the signal that this is the last question. So, I want to thank you both and Jeff, and you know for this wonderful opportunity to get architects and others involved, I think it's just the beginning, obviously. Maybe we'll continue to follow up with more events get more questions for discussion going but it's a hopeful moment right now I think to be able to think about this right to actually think this might really have a chance so wonderful thank you all for coming. Thank you for posting us. Thank you to AIA New York and the Center for architecture. Yeah. All right. Bye everyone. Thank you guys and I did want to let everyone know we do have upcoming webinars to dive into the other chapters within recap over the next three weeks will be looking at the equitable and just transition tomorrow, which talks about our job analysis policy and implementation later this week. And then we have more of our sector chapters materials industry and food and land use in the following weeks. These slides and the recording of this webinar will be made available on our Z cap website that has been entered into the chat several times. So give it a few hours for us to upload our recording but you will be able to access that after this. Again, thank you Roger, Laurie, Ben, and we'll see you guys next time. Bye.