 Thank you. So I'm going to introduce now our first panel. We have Heela Rasul Ayub, who is the director of our Planetary Politics Initiative at New America. She's going to moderate the panel. It is the title of the the panel's What Systemic Shifts Will Shape the Future of Conflict. We're going to particularly focus on climate change and also migration issues. Thank you, Peter, and welcome to one. And welcome to this panel discussion on the nexus of climate change, migration and conflict. Climate change is rapidly remapping where humans can exist on the planet. As optimum conditions shift away from the equatorial zones to the poles, more than 600 million people have already been stranded outside of the crucial environmental niche that best supports life. By later this century, three to six billion people between one third and a half of humanity could be trapped outside of that zone, facing extreme heat, food scarcity and higher death rates, unless emissions are sharply curtailed and mass migration is accommodated. So because we have 30 minutes for discussion and 15 minutes for audience questions, I want to just dive right into it. It gives me great pleasure to introduce this illustrious panel from across several time zones and climate zones. We are joined from Baghdad by Ambassador Farid Yasin, climate envoy of the Republic of Iraq, former ambassador to the United States. From Texas, I am happy to introduce Jeff Godell, a former New America fellow. Jeff's latest book, very scary title, is a New York Times bestseller. The Heat Will Kill You First, Life and Death on a Scorched Planet. He is the author of six previous books, including The Water Will Come, Rising Sea, Sinking Cities and the Remaking of the Civilized World. And from Geneva, it gives me great pleasure to be joined by Director General Elect Amy Pope for the International Organization of Migration. DG Elect Pope is currently the Deputy Director General for Management and Reform of IOM. Prior to joining IOM, she served as Senior Advisor on Migration to President Biden and in the Obama Administration, she served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Homeland Security Advisor. And so with that, I will just jump into my first question for Ambassador Yasin. In a country like Iraq, which is the fifth most climate vulnerable country to climate breakdown, not only is climate induced water scarcity exacerbating conflicts, but some of the origins of the water scarcity are from previous rounds of conflict, which has led to a great deal of instability, to say the least, and weakened institutions. As we see greater migration from rural areas facing acute scarcity, what is the absorbent of capacity of these urban centers to take in these new migrants internally within Iraq and to temper any rising communal conflict? Over to you, Ambassador Yasin. So, John, my microphone. Thank you for asking this question that goes right into the problem. So, first off, in Iraq, urban centers and like many parts of the world are already operating at above capacity in terms of infrastructure, whether it's roads, whether it's water facilities, whether it's electricity. So Baghdad now is, I don't know, multiple times the population that it's that it was designed to accommodate. So this is something that we have to take into account. What really helps in terms of handling migrants and refugees, if you will, in a country like Iraq is that we have very powerful, cultural, solidarity networks, whether they're family oriented or client or religious. They really help and remove a lot of the tensions on this. But the truth is, we won't be able to accommodate more of these waves as they become more frequent. Our climate change, what the migrations that we're seeing right now in Iraq are not really due to climate change. They're really due to lack of water, droughts. But these droughts are induced, essentially, by upstream damming in damming in upstream countries. We've lost some like 40% of our water inflow over the last 10, 20 years. We also have to do a lot better in terms of water management. But this is an issue that we will have to be dealing with and dealing with more and more appropriately. I think the answer to four Iraq's problems, as it is for other countries, is to develop and revive our countryside to develop a network of, you know, climate resilient villages, towns that can accommodate lack of water through technology. I mean, we're very fortunate to be living in the 21st century. And there are examples of new technologies that are making it possible to develop agriculture in extremely arid areas. There are some technologies, for example, that have reduced the water intake of all of plantations by 96%, sorry, 94%. So instead of having the need for 100 liters, you need only six. I mean, these are these as things that can change the overall conditions. But of course, you have to prepare for that. And you have to prepare for that by developing the appropriate infrastructure by developing the right culture and by getting your populations ready. Nonetheless, you know, water, water scarcity is not the only thing that will accrue from climate change. As was very well expressed in the book you just mentioned, the heat will kill you first. And I can tell you that the heat is no joking matter. Two weeks ago, three weeks ago, we had five successive days of 50 plus temperate degrees in Baghdad. It's nothing to joke about. We have to be ready. Thank you, Ambassador Yassine. And kind of on your point on adaptive technologies and the need for them, especially given that we're unlikely to get ahead on mitigation measures. I'd like to turn to Jeff. Are you saying in your book that the heat will kill you first, that as heat waves become more intense and more common, they will become more democratic. But until that happens, the heat is exposing deep fissures of inequity and injustice. Not everybody has access or can afford adaptive technologies like air conditioning or some of the technologies that Ambassador Yassine just mentioned. You also delve deep into the idea that he is predatory from a migration and security point of view. It preys on the most vulnerable first. So how do we reduce the impulse to flee within these places that are most vulnerable and the people that are most vulnerable? And how do we democratize access to adaptive technologies? Thank you. Those are really excellent questions and very complex questions about, you know, let me start with the idea that I think that, you know, for too long in the climate discussion, there's been this binary between, you know, mitigation or adaptation. And we haven't been able to have both conversations kind of at the same time. People think have thought before the talking about adaptation takes away from the political inertia and energy towards mitigation. And if you talk about mitigation, that will take away from any kind of political momentum for adaptation. First of all, so I think we need to really reframe the larger conversation because obviously what's driving, you know, these migration problems that we talk about. In my book, I talk about heat as a kind of force of planetary chaos. And so we need to like turn down the thermostat, right? And that's the number one thing that we can't forget about, which is reducing fossil fuel emissions as quickly as possible and much faster than what we're doing. But then, you know, we also have to think and talk about adaptation. And, you know, that gets into technology for sure, like Ambassador Yasin was talking about. But it's also, you know, deeply political and it's about this divide between, you know, the wealthy and the vulnerable. And that is I see that here in Texas. I live in Austin, you know, there's it's been a summer of brutal extreme heat. And you can see, you know, the outdoor workers, people who are working on the streets, farm workers, you know, incredibly vulnerable to these outdoor conditions. And then there's, you know, the knowledge workers and others who are sitting inside their air conditioned offices and, you know, just think that it's like a little bit higher of an electricity bill. So how do you how do you deal with this? How do you deal with this separation? And, you know, we have a governor in Texas who, for political reasons, decided to pass legislation making it illegal for any city or county in Texas to pass laws requiring water breaks and shade breaks, rest for outdoor workers. I mean, it's, you know, climate has been politicized in a very powerful way here. So, you know, the answer to these questions is technological. Yes, we can figure out ways to develop cheaper air conditioning, better access to air conditioning for people who can't afford it. We can subsidize electricity rates to make it cheaper for people who do have AC to run them. We can think about cooling technologies. There's a lot of technological solutions to some of these problems, but it's also, you know, a deeply political problem. And it's a deeply political problem, you know, in the most straightforward sense, but also in, you know, just like money in the sense of we see that in the international climate negotiations with the Green Climate Fund and things like that. So it's a, to me, when we think about, you know, how we're going to deal with this gap, we have to think first about politics. Thanks, Jeff. And on politics, I'd like to turn it over to Director General Elect Amy Pope, you know, IOM as an agency, as an organization that works very much directly on the ground with the populations most affected. In my previous work in development, I've worked very closely with IOM and they've always been on the forefront acknowledging the impacts that climate change over time and then as well as immediate climate induced disasters have on populations in the displacement of people. But it's also a very political question. And given your where you sit and some of the not necessarily aversion to delving into politics, but acknowledging the impact that climate has on politics and that politics has on acknowledging climate. How much is IOM investing in activities that address adaptation measures? And if there are any specific initiatives or programs that the IOM is planning to implement to promote climate resilient migration, both within countries and internationally, we'd love to hear more about that. Thank you, Hila. And I also just want to say thank you to New America and ASU for even raising this issue. It's one that frankly, I think is not getting enough attention given how significant the impact will be on hundreds of millions of people into the future. I was actually just in Kenya for the Africa Climate Summit. And when I was there, in addition to engaging with the government officials, I also made a trip out to Dadaab, which many of you will know is one of the world's largest and longest standing refugee camps where over 100,000 people have come over the last about two years because of the drought in Somalia. And those people are joining hundreds of thousands of people who are already displaced and are unable to go home because, frankly, they don't have a way to live at home. Right. And when we talk about Somalia, we're talking about conflict. Obviously, they've had a long history of conflict and continued threats as a result of al-Shabaab. But when you layer that on top of the inability of communities to make a living and many communities are agricultural or pastoral, so they are literally depending on the land to feed themselves and their children, you immediately see how climate change is becoming a threat multiplier. So it is first and foremost, if you cannot make a living, if you have no future at home, moving is the most human adaptation strategy that now exists. Right. And if you add in communities that have been facing conflict, especially for a prolonged period of time, you can see how climate is actually destabilizing and preventing more durable solutions in those communities. So from my point of view, number one is just building awareness about what's happening. And and, you know, for a lot of these communities, there is no low-cost air conditioning solution. They just, I mean, they have very little, right? They're living in very basic circumstances. So building awareness of what we're seeing right now on the ground and how that will impact communities across the world. That's that's key. Two is driving the political consensus that this is happening. So I was in Africa in Kenya because we are helping to facilitate what's known as the Kampala Declaration, which is basically an acknowledgement by African member states of the impact of climate on human mobility because that consensus doesn't yet exist. Everybody sees it. You know, one of the ministers said to me, well, but it's obvious. It's obvious, but but there's still this unwillingness to acknowledge. And the reason why that's so important is because then that allows us to build climate change and climate adaptation into national planning, into resource mobilization, into strategic thinking. So for me, this is this is there's an awareness raising. There's a political consensus driving and then there's on the ground. What is our direct response and our ability to provide more stability for communities that are impacted? So there is a tremendous amount of work that needs to happen. And we are so far behind where we need to be given the real threat this poses to existing communities and then the destabilizing follow on impact it will have as a result. Thank you. And I particularly appreciate that that last point, because I think for those of us who work in this space, we take it for granted that there is consensus, but there is, in fact, not that consensus that is necessary. In fact, there are powers that be that are shifting the consensus to the other side. So on that and Ambassador, I guess, you do get very political in your role as you should. But, you know, I think we think. Measures and we think about these large scale COP convenings and the like, but a lot of the agreements that we have to come to must be done at the regional level. You alluded earlier to the lower flow rate of the rivers in Iraq due to some of your regional neighbors, Turkey and Iran in particular. Can you share a little more with us about how Iraq is engaging with those regional neighbors on the urgency of shared water resources and how that figures into other regional considerations? Well, thank you. This is a critical issue. You know, oil is precious, but water is even more precious because it's vital for life. And so in every country has to take into account the requirements of its own population, even before looking at the requirements of downstream countries. But, you know, there are historic presidents. One has to take into account Iraq would be nothing without its two rivers. My slogan is, you know, Iraq land of the two rivers. Let's keep it that way and let's keep them flowing. And so I think there are examples that we could we could emulate in terms of wise management, equitable management of water that have been implemented. I can think, for example, of the Mekong Delta Authority or the way the European Union handles their rivers that cross go through several countries. But the real issue that I want to raise here is that, in fact, there is even though action has to be local, but the resources that are needed are such a magnitude that this has to be a global, global collective effort. There is so much need. And the issue is really down falls down to equity. The countries that will be most vulnerable to climate change have done in the end of the calculations, very little to raise the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is where it is because of history, because of the fact that, you know, the industrial revolution has been going on for actually more than a century. And so we need to focus on this aspect of equity and to force a consensus to get the countries of the world all to chip in as they can, according to their resources. And also, according to the needs of the countries that will be most at need, one of the things that I'd like to point out here is that we're all trying to talk about achieving the Paris Consensus, which is, you know, capping the increase of average temperatures to 1.5. But that's an average, you know, there are countries that will get less. There are countries that will get a lot more, really a lot more. And my concern as an Iraqi climate envoy is that Iraq is going to be is most likely to be one of those countries where the temperature rise is going to be way more than than 1.5 degrees. And that's going to be also the case of our neighboring countries. And so how do we deal with it? Well, we have to get Iraq together to what we need to do. But then we will require the help of the international community as as much as they can in terms of technology, in terms of resources and perhaps in terms of a little more water from our neighboring countries. Thank you, Ambassador Yasin. And to that point on, you know, the impact of increased carbon emissions does not stay within borders. And so we are seeing the impact of it on the more vulnerable countries, most vulnerable communities. And so this brings me to a point that you made, Jeff, in your book. As a lawyer, I really appreciated your examination of the science of extreme event attribution, especially as we go into the next cop and ongoing discussions around loss and damage funds. What will it take for the international community to accept attribution and attach monetary value to it? Particularly with special interests playing a very significant role in these discussions. Yeah, that's a great point. I think I don't know what it will take to, you know, gain recognition of the power of this attribution science and how that will exactly play out. But I think it's one of the most important developments in climate science right now and actually in kind of climate politics right now because it is, you know, for a long time, scientists have, when they talked about attribution, you know, of extreme events, a hurricane, a drought, a heat wave. They always quoted James Hansen's line about, you know, climate loads the dice so that, you know, these extreme events are more likely but we could never say, oh, this heat wave or this storm was caused by higher levels of CO2. Well, now attribution science, which is, I have a chapter about in my book, it's basically a kind of modeling that looks at extreme events and asks, would this have happened without the higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere or not? And I write about a German scientist named Frederica Otto who is on the forefront of this. And, you know, they've been able to advance this science far enough that, you know, she and others tell me, you know, it can stand up in court. And what they've done is not that they look at every event and say, aha, you know, this was caused by climate change. They're able to discern that some events are climate driven like the heat wave in the Pacific Northwest in 2021. They've said virtually could not have happened without the elevated levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Then they looked at the Pakistani floods last year and they basically said, no, this was within the range of sort of natural events and we don't see CO2 as a driver. But what's really important about this is it begins to, you know, change the political dynamics because you can now look at this and say, look, you in the global north or you ExxonMobil or, you know, caused this in the same way that, you know, there's not an exact comparison but it's a fair enough comparison of smoking and tobacco, you know, we now can attribute these events. And so once we can attribute these events with some degree of actual, with close to factual certainty, that changes the political discussion in a big way. And it recalculates this big question that's at the heart of what we're talking about about mitigation, adaptation and security, which is what do the rich, you know, who are causing the problem, owe to, you know, the people who are in the refugee camps and the name he is talking about and what does justice and equity mean in this world now? And this attribution science is changing that in a very dramatic way. Thank you, Jeff. And then for Director General Elect Pope, you know, I threw out some very dramatic numbers earlier at the top of this conversation. And while that might resonate for some, I think it's too far removed from people's day-to-day realities. But as I mentioned earlier, IOM has been doing excellent work on documenting and researching and seeing whether that nexus is between climate change, disasters and conflict and migration. So, you know, there are conversations within these cops, the UNFCCC, among others, but they seem so high-level. How is the IOM working with these other organizations to create a coordinated and effective responsive strategy that deals with the day-to-day of people's lives and brings it down a few levels? Oh, I wish I could say that it was fully coordinated and effective. I think because we're not fully at the point where we have appreciated the threat, the response is actually not where it needs to be. I mean, take, for example, what we know about communities that are going to be most impacted by climate disaster. And the truth is we know very little, right? So part of my priorities coming into the organization is to engage with our sister agencies as well as those other entities that are collecting the data on which communities are going to be most impacted by climate disaster, drought, flood, sea level rise to start, right? And then identify which vulnerabilities exist in those communities. So for example, if you are completely dependent on farming and we project that you're actually not going to be able to farm, what are we doing now to engage? Right now, that's not happening. There is not a concerted effort globally to approach the problems that that way. And so that means that the solutions are lacking and they're very ad hoc. So we have really great solutions, working with a community in South Sudan who has been displaced by flooding to help them do better water management. But we do not have across the board a strategic approach where we're systematically applying the data, overlaying it with vulnerability of communities and then coming up with interventions on the adaptation side. So that's where the work needs to happen. And that's why the awareness raising is so critical to the future. Thank you so much. And I think we are almost at time but before we go to audience questions, one thing that I like to do with panels, I always acknowledge that when we have such a gathering of great minds and experiences, I like to give people the opportunity to ask one another questions. And so I'll turn it over to you while if you have any questions for one another. Well, at the risk of betraying my age, I'd like to make a comment. So most of the models that are looking at our evolution as a species under the impact of climate change take 2050 as a target for net zero or 2040. 2050 is to me not that far off. I started working on climate change issues in 1996. That's 27 years ago. And 2050 is 27 years from now. So this is real. It's no joke. It's something, I don't know if I'll be there, but you sir, I hope I'm pretty sure you will be. And so this is about the livelihoods of all the people or actually a great chunk of the people who are attending this workshop. This is about you. It's not about strangers. This is something that engages us all and we have to address it because we'll have to live with it, hopefully. Yeah, I'll just add one thing to that, which is the reason I gave my book, as you described scary title of The Heat Will Kill You First is because I really wanted, I think that the discussion about climate and impacts has been kind of marooned in this sort of middle future for too long and dominated by scenarios and arguments about scenarios and future people that will be impacted and future water flows and future projections of heat and all that. And I think that, I mean, in my book, I really wanted to underscore that this is happening now that these impacts are real. Heat can, you can go for a walk on a hot day in Baghdad or in Phoenix. And if you're not prepared, you can die in two hours. And this is not hypothetical. This is not some risk that's far in the future. This is a risk that is playing out around us right now in real time that all of us are dealing with. And, you know, I just, the attempt in my book was to do exactly what the investor talked about, which is shift this conversation to today, not to 2050. Just add that the other angle where we are thinking a little bit differently about this is starting to understand and appreciate how migration can actually be one of the climate adaptation strategies. So if people no longer have the opportunity to make a living because of climate factors that have completely eroded their economic opportunities at home, how do we build strategies that enable them to take opportunities that may be elsewhere? In some cases that's gonna be within a country. So we've seen a lot of natural rural to urban migration but it's important that we start to do planning around that. And then when we think about the demographic changes that we expect to see in the world much more broadly, can we think about how do we enable communities that cannot adapt at home to take the jobs that might be elsewhere? So again, thinking about not just, how do we avoid a mass migration? How do we do migration that's gonna work in the face of a changing climate? Thank you all. And I think then we can turn it over to audience questions. I think we'll have some questions coming from our virtual audience as well as the mic in the room. So we'll give it a minute or four questions to come through. Question for Ambassador Yasin. This is Peter Bergen. Can you sort of assess, obviously there's great wealth disparities in the Middle East. The Saudis, the Qataris, the Emiratis have a lot of resources. How are they doing compared to say the Yemens or other countries without many resources that are equally affected? Well, both the Emirati and the Saudis and I've observed their attitude during the climate change negotiations. In the very beginning, they, like many people working in the oil industry, were dubious, were deniers, if you will, and in fact tried to not scuttle but delay discussions. And in fact, I remember their chief negotiator was very often offered the fossil of the year award by organizations like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth in a climate activists. The attitude that you feel that you sense from the chief negotiators from Saudi Arabia, from the Emirates is completely different. It's very responsible and there is a concerted effort on their part to try to use their resources to develop technologies that will help to the greatest degree mitigate the impact of greenhouse gas emissions. They're doing a lot of effort, for example, on carbon capture use and storage. Whether that will be a silver bullet, I don't know, but it's certainly something that needs to be pursued and worked on. One of my pet ideas is to try to talk about countries around the Persian Gulf or Caribbean Gulf, call it what you will, is to see whether we can develop a common stand in these negotiations. Because in fact, one of the reasons why I think Saudi Arabia is moving in the direction that it did is because they are confronted to heat. And you mentioned, Jeff mentioned heat in Texas. I think I heard that the municipality of Riyadh just passed a law forbidding people from working outdoors between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. So these are adaptation strategies that would not have come to their minds had they not been so aware of the impact of climate change and the fact that it really can kill you. I think one thing we were remiss in mentioning in the course of this panel was, there is some focus on adaptive measures and mitigation measures, but we are also going into a new great competition over a battle of resources for renewable energies themselves. And so this is creating a new kind of geopolitical tension and geopolitical competition, primarily between the U.S. and China, but among others. And so I would like to pose this question to all three panelists. How do you see this impacting those communities that currently house those resources? I'll say something about this. I think that this is gonna have a profound impact on geopolitics as the kind of power structures have been developed around the world by this wealth of fossil fuels. And we can argue about the timing and we can argue about this pace of the decline, but clearly this transition away from fossil fuels is happening and will continue to happen. And there will be sort of winners and losers in this end game, but the end game is happening. And so everyone now is scrambling for the next kind of oil. And so we have the rare minerals that are needed for batteries. We have things like lithium that were never considered valuable 20 years ago who cared about lithium. And now so places like Greenland, for example, right? Which was just seen as this place with a lot of ice and some fishing villages and just like not a part of the sort of geopolitical strategy map in any powerful way. Now all of a sudden is in the middle of this mad gold rush for rare minerals and things. And that gives them a lot of leverage and a lot of power and is shifting the sort of larger geopolitical conversations about where the future lies. What impact will this have in the Middle East as oil declines in value? I mean, obviously there's all kinds of ways of propping up value and prices, but in the long run, this is gonna change. And as you mentioned that Saudis and others know this, but it's still going to be a great geopolitical shift in the decade or two as we see this transition accelerate. For sure it will. My advice to countries that are fortunate enough to have resources is to pay attention to what happened to countries with oil. The oil curse is a reality. So they really should formulate their thinking in terms of long-term planning, look as far ahead as they can, think of their future generations and get the best international lawyers they can to work with them. We have one question from our virtual audience. And this is to all panelists, how to persuade convinced national governments that need to address mitigate climate change that it is now and immediate? I actually think that this tie to mobility and migration is actually a really concrete example of how climate is impacting communities. If you are in many places around the world, you're seeing people who are displaced by climate. There are many, many senior officials in other parts of the world who are concerned about mass migration and what the destabilizing impact that might have on their communities. For me talking about and seeing the evidence of people moving is one of our best ways to demonstrate that this is happening. People are leaving because they have no other choice. And so tying it to what we're seeing on the ground, making clear what the connection is, driving the political consensus around that, that's all part of persuading national governments that this is no joke. I mean, it also helps by the way that people in places like Arizona felt it firsthand, people in places like Switzerland where I am felt it firsthand. And so that is part of the lived experience, if you will. What I'll say is that what we're doing right now is part of what we need to do. We have to raise awareness as Amy has said. And a lot of people are doing excellent work to make people aware of what's happening. Jeff's book was mentioned. I really urge you all to read it. But there have been some remarkable pieces of reporting by journalists across the globe. One I will mention in particular is a piece by Alyssa Rubin and colleagues of the New York Times who went and followed with technical equipment. I mean, this is not something you could do on a print paper, but you can do it online where they took instruments that could measure the body temperature of an Iraqi worker in Basra going out to work very early in the morning before sunup because he wanted to get his job done before temperatures would be too unlivable. Compare that to the life of one of his neighbors, not two distant neighbors, the Kuwaiti University professor who lives in a protected environment with an appropriate infrastructure. These are things that can make people sense how direct this threat is in terms of impacting our lives to be a worker under noon temperatures in Texas or in Iraq or in Arizona is not something to be envied. And I think this is something we have to factor in. And I have to say, Jeff, in your book, you do mention this a great deal. And what I appreciated most about your book is that it started off with stories of families that look like mine, young families, healthy families in the US with the means to adapt to the heat and yet they are being affected too. And so I think for so long, so many people in positions of power and for who can influence those in positions of power have felt fairly inoculated because it's always, those people in Bangladesh who are facing flooding and are going to be underwater and those poor people in the Horn of Africa who are facing droughts and water scarcity, it's not going to affect me in the immediate term, but we're seeing the impacts of it coming to life in a real way. And so how can we catalyze on this moment to shift public opinion in a way that can influence large scale policy decision making? Yeah, that goes to this question of, 15 years ago I had a conversation with Al Gore about kind of what it takes to wake people up to the risks and consequences of climate change. And he talked about everybody having their kind of oh shit moment as he called it, where they realized the scope and scale of what we're really talking about here. And I think over the years I've talked to many people and it's true many of us have had our oh shit moments. I asked President Obama a couple of years ago when I was traveling in Alaska with him and he talked about seeing the changes in the barrier and the coral reefs in Hawaii that he used to swim and snorkel among when he was a kid and seeing them bleached out and changing. And that was really kind of one of the things that really woke him up. But I've put aside this notion that we're gonna have some kind of collective awakening. This is going to be trench warfare, two steps forward, one step back. This is, we see that in America very clearly now where we have one political party that essentially thinks that climate change is a hoax. And to the point of security and migration that we've been talking about, you know, we would like to think that as we get educated and smarter about this, we'll see people in motion understand the risks and consequences of that, understand how the threat to security and deal with it in a kind of rational way. In fact, in Texas what we see is, razor blades in the Rio Grande and more calls for armed border patrols. I mean, it can also work in the opposite direction, right? Which is one of the great dangers that I think we face now is especially with migration is using that as an excuse to divide and to build walls and how do we broaden the security question to be not just about you and your family but about us and the world. And that's an excellent point. If I may avail on our panelists to take just one more question from our live audience. Yes, hello, this is Andres Martinez, the editorial director of Future Tents and other ASU, New America Collaboration. This conversation has been great and it hits very close to home. We've mentioned Arizona. I live there now and survived the 31 consecutive days of 110 plus degrees. That is Fahrenheit, so just to clarify. I've been really struck, Jeff, to hear you talk about the tension between adaptation and mitigation and the sense that the politics doesn't allow to talk about both. And what feels like a lifetime ago, I think we had you at your first New America events talk about geo-engineering of all things. And so a question for you and for the others is, are we in a place that you feel we can still explore and deploy technology to serve as part of the answer to this looming crisis or present crisis, really? Or are the politics where, as you said, some people want to say this is a hoax, other people perhaps want to say we need to change our behaviors. Some days I worry that there's actually no space to really at least look at technology as part of the answer but I'm really eager to hear your thoughts on that. Thank you. Thanks, Envis. So I think when we talk about broadly about technology, that's a very broad subject. So you brought up geo-engineering, which is the sort of Frankenstein of technologies, which for people who don't know about this, what we're talking about is basically some nation or even individual putting a fleet of aircraft into the sky that distributes particles. The act is sort of a solar shade, kind of in some sense creating an artificial volcano which would help reflect away some sunlight and cool the earth. It's a really bad idea that it has some kind of political inevitability as temperatures get hotter and hotter, which is a whole other subject that I don't think is worth going into right now but I do think technology, it can be a huge, is obviously a huge tool in dealing with this, whether it's when I was writing my sea level rise book in Lagos, I'm reporting in Lagos, they were, I wrote about a Dutch Nigerian architect who built a community center floating in the sort of water slums of Lagos that just out of sort of oil drums and spare wood, it was this beautiful structure that changed the relationship of the community with each other and was a great example of the kind of technology that sort of anti is not, technology is not always Elon Musk and Tesla's and things like that. And here in Texas, we see technology happening and changing things at a big rate. Texas is the home of fossil fuels. It's the ancient home of oil and gas in America. And yet during the seat wave, 30% of the power on the grid was coming from basically solar and Texas leads the nation in solar energy, which nobody talks about. This is happening, right? These technological changes are happening. There's technology to deal with water shortages as the ambassador mentioned, more efficient systems of all ways, all kinds of redesigning how cities are built, more green spaces, all kinds of things like this. But ultimately, I feel with the technology discussion is it plays into the idea that there's a kind of silver bullet for this problem, that we just need to figure out the right gizmos deployed in the right places and everything will be fixed. And it's not. And that's why this conversation is so important, is because it's really political and it's about who gets these gizmos first and where the money flows and what the relationship is of, these questions about justice and equity that we've talked about. That's where the difficult part of this transition is stuck right now. Thank you so much. Can I say something? Please do say something. We have a little bit of time to recognize you guys there. I'm a little biased. I think there potentially is a silver bullet and it's fusion. But even if we achieve it, if we ever will, we'll have to work together to deploy it throughout the world. That doesn't mean that we don't need to mitigate as much as possible, reduce our greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible. But there are things that we could do to see whether we can come up with a silver bullet. And I think we need to do all of the above to ensure the future of mankind. Don't want to be too dramatic, but that's what it's all about. Well, we hope to continue these conversations here at New America and elsewhere. But I think to both of your points, justice and equity and human rights really have to be centered in these conversations. I know that we are over time and we have to keep the agenda moving, but I really do want to express my heartfelt appreciation for all of your time. I know that calling in from across different time zones and with your very busy schedules isn't always easy, but appreciate the time that you've made for this all important conversation. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much for this important thing. Thank you. Thank you.