 I can't believe we've reached our final session and roads final final final finalist presentation so we have as I shared on Slack and I'm going to share my screen now. We have three great finalist teams so a big congratulations to team two nineteen and twenty three and a big congratulations and thank you I know I already said this during the break to all the teams I mean they were also great and I'm not just saying that um you know I it was a very short time frame and a big ask and you guys delivered and you did it well you did it creatively and thoughtfully so thank you so much for all your hard work on these en-road projects so here is how this is going to go so we're going to give each team uh two minutes to do kind of a lightning round overview of their scenario so that um we can you know if you haven't had a chance to see their video you can you can know what they're about and then we'll open it up to a discussion led by Sally Benson and Drew Jones um and and involving all of you where we can talk to each of the teams about uh what they were thinking their work we'll then open it up to a vote it'll be kind of a five minute vote vote slash break that Jenny will lead us on and just to be clear uh everybody in the zoom can vote um including the finalist teams so it'll be done through a zoom poll and then we'll announce the winner have a kind of a wrap up um both on en-roads and the course so since uh everything about this week has been very online and technical I have devised a very non-technical way of randomizing which team goes first uh so I will uh draw the team number and then give that team two minutes to uh to give us give us their spiel so uh excuse me the first team will be team 19 hello everyone it's been a pleasure getting to know such a diverse and knowledgeable group of people this week and many thanks to Kate, Jenny, Drew and the rest of the energy at Stanford and Climate Interactive team for this amazing program our group is the 19th lever En-Roads gives you 18 levers that are supposed to maneuver many different aspects of environmental and energy policy but we believe that they emitted the most important 19th lever on the human initiative that provides a guiding influence on global energy policy so we added it in we applied the 19th lever and focused on three major guiding principles we believe that climate change is a global initiative and we want to focus on measures that like the Paris Agreement truly involve 195 out of 195 countries rather than selectively picking winners and losers we also are bullish on technology and especially on promoting advancements and existing technology over hoping for breakthroughs and new technologies finally we believe that there's no free lunch nor magic bullet our plan will have winners and losers especially in the short term and we believe that losers can only be compensated through a radically different global redistribution and a new normal the biggest actions we took were placing a large but staged carbon tax equivalent to about a 10% increase in gasoline price pre-2040 we also further limited coal for how environmentally destructive it can be both in terms of CO2 and its other toxic or hard to handle emissions allowing natural gas to become the affordable driving force for developing countries development we believe strongly in renewables and modification and took measures in methane and carbon removal that integrates smoothly with existing infrastructure most importantly we made sure that our plan can pay for itself okay uh i'll give you five seconds to wrap up okay um this was a case study we did in the united states that showed that our carbon tax can trickle electro mass transportation and pair entire renewable energy subsidy and double department of vending university scholarships for the next 20 years thank you for uh listening to the presentation and we hope you pull on the 19th lever all right thank you team 19 okay um team 23 okay uh hello we are stand affordable energy so just in terms of a quick big picture overview of our scenario we are projected to achieve a global temperature change of two degrees Celsius by 2100 in accordance with the Paris agreement we don't quite reach net zero total greenhouse gas emissions but we are on pace to achieve it soon after 2100 and finally the three most prominent long-term sources of energy as projected by our model will be renewable new technology and nuclear power respectively we took an approach of seeing energy as essentially an essential good and so there were some key optimization objectives that we looked at while creating our scenario while taking or having these in mind some of the key levers that we worked on is having a slow wind down of coal low natural gas and biofuels adoption as well as ensuring that the market price of electricity remains accessible to all in the world uh the losers in our scenario are industries and nations that rely on or invest greatly in energy sources that we tax heavily which includes the petro states the developing world and china's belt road initiative amongst others our winners are those that benefit from investment in green infrastructure and a more protected environment including cities in the healthcare industry now just wrapping around this we found that was fairly easy to go down to about 2.3 2.4 degrees with very realistic measures and that are already being worked out today but the last tenths of a degree were much more difficult to do so after going through a lot of the levers we did some realism checks to ensure that none of the ideas that we implemented in the model were out there implementing what we have in the scenario will definitely take a consolidated international effort and will take a lot of work but from the research we've done both on the learning curves of different technologies technological developments as well as some of the other aspects such as the societal costs of carbon we think that the measures are realistic to achieve and that leaves us very hopeful that we can achieve the two degrees if there is a consorted effort around the world okay great thank you team two okay so before I start I just wanted to say thank you to the whole team for putting this together and here I go so our plan is called phase carbon reduction and renewables advancement so some of course we were able to reach two degrees C some high level concepts we like other teams wanted to phase out carbon gradually and focus on renewable energy and other sustainability technologies in researching development so I actually think it's more effective to show you our scenario in a timeline we begin phasing out carbon first with a moderate carbon tax and this gives time for legacy companies to prepare for our 2030 2040 and 2055 ceasing of building infrastructure to emphasize it doesn't mean they can't stop using their existing infrastructure so they still have time to use it but they just have to instead of investing in new infrastructure they invest in renewable energy technology simultaneously we are subsidizing natural gas and renewables bioenergy and nuclear from 2020 to 2060 to incentivize these companies to make the shift to renewable energy we also have to implement various other moderate policies in the year 2030 in order to actually reach two degrees C a big one was methane n2o and f gases regulation as well as a forestation we are pretty aggressive about carbon removal and we also did use a technological breakthrough a new technology in the year 2065 but it was not necessary to reach two degrees C nor was it necessary for our plan to be economical speaking of our plan it does pay for itself a majority of its lifetime the excess money you want to invest in r&d you can see we first phase our carbon then oil then natural gas and that's purely based on the carbon intensities of these sources and the graph on the right you can see this is what the consumer will see so there is a slight increase in market price of electricity but it does not reach above 2000 levels and the new technology we implement yeah last sentence is not required to achieve below business as usual case but it does help a little bit so there we go awesome thanks to all the teams so now we'll have our discussion and so I am going to pass it over to Sally Benson and Drew Jones to help lead us in that and I'll be managing the q and a for students we want this to be a discussion so please feel free to raise your hands or ask questions in the chat and we'll we'll get to those as well okay terrific hi this is Sally can you hear me yeah yeah okay so maybe drew we'll we'll start with you do you have questions for the the three teams yeah thanks hey Sally I haven't seen you in a while hey everybody um first I just got to say Janet and I were blown away with what an amazing job you've done with the model nobody has done such detailed intricate elaborate interesting scenarios as you guys that's just they're amazing so and the graphics around it like team two that last thing with the timeline no one's ever done a timeline on that no one has filled the whole screen of actions and outcomes map that you saw with 53 lever moves so just acknowledging what you guys did as I said nobody and thousands of people around the world use this model no one's gotten into it that much um so congratulations we're excited to see what it could do we didn't know um I think the big question is for you three you know we're optimizing for climate we want two degrees and yet we can't have our policies hurt particularly marginalized communities poor people are getting poorer around the world rich people are getting richer what did you think about and what did you do to make sure that with energy prices or with other environmental considerations or side effects as they call them how did you think about how not to hurt the people who were trying to help with climate justice actions in the near term like here next week if as these policies get implemented I'm curious yeah so can we do it that way like ask you guys questions is that that's the deal yeah so I would say really briefly I'm curious what did you do to make sure you don't hurt particularly poor folks in the near term I can answer the question from team 19's perspective um if that's okay don't worry so I think um our proposal the way that we tried to minimize the impact on the lower income neighborhoods was primarily twofold the first was um the fact that we made sure our carbon tax um would be able to pay for advanced electric map electric mass transportation infrastructure so the 10% increase in fuel prices corresponds um gas is about the price of elasticity of minus 0.6 that corresponds in the long term to about a six percent drop and how much people are trying to use gasoline to transport themselves so we replaced that and tripled our electric mass transportation infrastructure to make sure that people are still able to go where they need to go um the second stage of our plan was relying on natural gas so natural gas is really cheap cheaper to transport over short distances and many developing nations are in areas where they have natural gas resources um so they have this resource available to them they just don't have the incentive right now with oil prices so cheap to make that transition so being able to stage up do a stage tax for us um for carbon help would help incentivize them to look into natural gas until 2040 um at which point um essentially it becomes like uh intermediary technology where they're kind of phasing out the carbon heavy oil and coal and giving time until electrification really reaches economical regions for them thanks yeah um I can take the question for team to uh I'll put my if I can um can I put my timeline back on it great um so yeah so we were we we thought a lot about um developing countries and uh they were actually one of our primary concerns so we first of all we implemented a very moderate carbon tax you can see it's only rated as a medium uh while also incentivizing natural gas immediately so the idea there is we wanted to shift uh developing countries from uh coal to natural gas for about a 20 year period um the same time we never we didn't want to put them in a situation where they felt as if they're in existing infrastructure would be compromised um either by telling them that you can't use it um which we did not do um or by implementing a carbon tax that would be that would make it uneconomical uh to use their existing infrastructure so uh instead we staged the ceasing of infrastructure and allowed their existing infrastructure to die out over their natural life cycles um and and ultimately we are confident in technological improvements we see the vast amount of um time and energy that's being put in from universities like sanford and others across the world um in renewable energy technologies and uh we believe and we look at trends in the industry that those technologies will become cheaper even for developing countries uh we wanted to give humanity enough time to make those improvements so we delayed it till 2050 but there's even evidence that in some situations the technologies are cheaper now so we felt pretty confident about that and and we are um uh we are ultimately uh uh displaying our comp through our plan we're ultimately displaying the confidence um in improvements in technology and we're buying time for it with our plan as well so yeah thanks okay does the other group want to add to that answer question as well i'll jump in here for group 23 um i think a lot of the points have actually been mentioned already so we've taken a largely similar approach in that we have natural gas um coming in temporarily as a stopgap measure however we've also tried to not um overemphasize it largely because it's been shown to have um disproportionately negative effects on less well-off or less socio-economically developed regions um particularly in the exploitation um so that's one side of it where we're a bit careful um one hope there is that um with a lot of the developments that are going on especially in getting the cost down of renewables as well as hydrogen um that going into 2030 to 2040 uh we can start phasing that out and so looking at our engine mix that's where both oil coal and gas um starts slowly phasing out around that time um and then another measure is largely just been focused around costs how can we ensure that um we have a market price around the world that is accessible to everyone even in regions where um they are less well off the increasing adoption of renewables where so i think yesterday we had the example that in portugal the first project's been developed for wind um where the energy prices fall into one cent per kilowatt hour um which is incredible when you compare to um traditional prices so very hopeful that within renewables um ramping up starting around about 2030 we can have a significant shift where um the energy costs also drop particularly in regions that are building new infrastructure now so looking at more developing regions of the world and of course ensuring that the existing infrastructure on the coal side doesn't need to be turned off so similar to group two ensuring that it can be used to the end of life thank you okay so maybe we'll uh we'll give a run a chance to pass question to uh to the to the group or either specifically to one group or something for all of them as well frankly uh i'm just impressed by the amount of thinking that has gone behind this and and gives me hope that we don't have to do the draconian things that we have that a lot of people are proposing but there could be a transition to something that is much more palatable frankly uh around the world and this is not just for developing countries and uh but including the world and and if i look at you mentioned the one cent per kilowatt hour we just heard on Tuesday this morning um one of the many entrepreneurs who makes wind turbines he said he's predicting one cent per kilowatt hour so this is not just prediction anymore but this is real and so it's very very hopeful so that's all i'll say thank you very much this is fascinating okay do you have do you have any questions for the group or are not at this moment no not at this moment okay so so i have a question for all of you then um so i was not clear um probably just because it went by way too quickly for me uh what was the the total energy that you're using in in uh 2020 100 or 2050 either one and how how is that relative to the uh total total energy available today i can take this one for uh 23 um so in 2100 we are looking at about uh 400 exojoules per year and and the reason for that is because we actually predict because obviously one of the things we've talked about a lot in this um in in this conference has been that we need to almost double the amount of energy that we have available right now for the long-term effects um but ours doesn't obviously our scenario doesn't do that and the reason for that is that we predicted actually somewhat have been slower economic growth than would be expected with the status quo and our reasoning for that was obviously partly because of the pandemic but more because of what we're seeing with a growing technological divide between um american digital infrastructure and chinese digital infrastructure so if you look at like long-term economic effects of those kind of sanctions and um maybe i'm sorry anyway uh if we look at the long-term effects of of sanctions between the two nations and growing hostilities and the effect of that plays on a global economic market as well as you know obviously intermediaries like the EU and Latin America and Africa having to almost take sides and effect as we're seeing right now with Britain and hui i think that we project lower economic growth and and therefore we see just around 400 exojoules per year meeting all of the needs that we have long-term okay great how about stem portable energy that we are stem portable oh i'm sorry okay whoops okay how about 19th lever yep i can answer the question for the 19th lever um so i just drew the graph right now and so we're using about oh oh sorry spotlight i thought i said i was muted about 450 exojoules per year by 2050 and about 700 exojoules per year by 2100 so we had um like we definitely thought through the same concerns that um teams are affordable did but we also thought of the alternative issue that um electrification has a very noticeable effect to increase GDP per capita of developing nations um i've seen it personally in my home country at Popstone and it's been measured widely across the other regions so we thought that kind of counterposing this economic slump of COVID-19 as we tried to expand electrification and our group was very enthusiastic about electrification as a solution um the amount of energy consumption is just going to increase so we saw kind of a tripling of energy usage okay all right um and then how about phased reduction what was your total energy um so yeah you can see the graph here we do deviate from business as usual case um unlike the first group uh we did not touch population nor economic growth um we wanted to limit ourselves and and take on the challenge of saying okay let's say that this is actually true uh can we innovate around that um so the real reason for deviation uh from the business as usual case is increase in energy efficiency so we do have moderate uh increase in the efficiency of vehicles buildings industrial equipment um and that really is just in the theme of our entire scenario which says uh let's buy time uh for innovators to not make giant giant breakthroughs but to continue on the trends of improvement that we've been witnessing over the last uh few decades yeah i mean it's interesting so all of your um uh energy demands are really low um and i mean that's they're sort of on the order of 50 exajoules per year today 50 50 i'm sorry he had to gigajoules per person per year which is um basically the sort of same level well the global average is actually higher today than that and you know if you look at sort of the amount of energy that we think where you see a big deviation from the perspective of the human development index it's around 100 gigajoules per person per year so um so yeah so you guys are all pretty aggressive on efficiency which which is great um i guess i'm a little bit worried that uh people aren't going to have the energy they they need so for example the people in the u.s would have to go from 300 down to say 50 you know that's like a pretty draconian cut in total energy okay maybe we'll do one more round of us and then we'll open it up to everybody so drew do you have any more questions there's a distinction between deployment of what exists today and aspiration to what might be possible technologically in the future what would be the the place that you're the most wary of your own proposal given what you're counting on for the future that doesn't exist and i know this isn't the kind of thing like i don't know if you can answer right away but take a moment to think of it like what is the bet that you're making that feels to you the most challenging kind of like sally was just pointing at are you really sure we're going to be able to have energy efficiency gains like that what would be the technological or uh future bet that you're the most suspicious of where if you were a skeptic of your scenario you would say wait wait wait what about that how did you count on that to get you from 2.2 to 2.0 where are you the most wary of your own scenario regarding technological optimism and can you identify when you speak by like the name of your group because that's how i think of you not by your thank you um yeah i'd be happy to go first so we are team two phased carbon reduction or renewables advancement so i think there are two places if i was a skeptic and approaching our scenario there'd be two places one and this is something our group talked about at length and had pretty healthy debates about is the sheer power of these legacy companies fossil fuel companies and being able to pass anything that in the immediate that could negatively impact their businesses such as an immediate carbon price and the ceasing of building new infrastructure i think would be a challenge um yeah and to answer your question which i think uh you were directing more towards from a technology perspective we were pretty moderate in most of our uh technology projections um i would say the one that uh the one that we banked on the most that i'm probably most skeptical of uh would be the carbon removal technology slider uh it is still at medium growth but at the higher end of it um as you can see here um and i think the reason we went that way is because uh there's a there's i believe from what i understand from the industry and and we as a group believe that there's a lot of growth opportunity there that like we're kind of starting um from a point uh where we're kind of at the beginning now um whereas technologies like solar and wind uh we've been innovating in that space uh for a very long time we've already seen drastic improvements um so i think there's uh a great potential for even more improvements um for technological carbon removal from from the atmosphere thank you back and what a heart already what already kind of shared on our group you can see up my screen here right so so you can see kind of all the graphs so i think there are three areas that we're a little bit um cognitive about um the first is um the first two are on technology so we're bullish in technology but we're betting on technology here that hasn't been proven yet i'm probably on learning curves that are faster in some places than what we we've seen so far two areas in particular the first around carbon removal we are very aggressive in carbon removal um and i think that things like bio-car can go go to full potential um and you can see one of the graphs actually that um we have net negative emissions a big part of net negative emissions here uh at the end and that's a really important way kind of the second half of the century to to to get the temperature down to not have to increase anymore what we still increase over the next next 20 years or so second um we're very bullish on the further uh technological uh advancements in renewables in particular on storage uh so we're betting very big on renewables um and that requires storage to be viable uh and and big unknown from what we've heard also this week although a lot of people are working on it um and third and going back to i think a um a question that that was asked before our cost of energy goes up quite a bit in the short run you can see that here and that's because of a a decent carbon price in the uh 40 around 40 dollars um per ton in the medium actually 20 40 and much higher of the 350 later um and not politically of course um does give us some doubt as well um so so so we think being honest about our uh about our we think of course technically it makes sense uh but politically um and going back to Bruce's first question uh you you do need a new world order around redistribution to probably make this happen uh in a control network and the the one that's not yet illustrated they can do that so so could you just let me know like what is the size of your um carbon dioxide removal how many gigatons a year i can't read that yeah say by by 2050 right yeah okay so it's about 10 starting in 2050 oh 10 and 2050 okay would love your feedback on that doesn't sound really okay yeah it's ambitious but probably not uh not out of the realm of possibilities yeah no we're one of one of our guiding principles is you know we really have to bet on technology to get us full uh this human cost um right so so we are being aggressive on that one okay thank you does the 19th lever wanna yeah this uh the last one 23 i'll take that one uh let me just see if i can share as well um you should be able to see my screen so i think for us there's a few factors of going away from technology the biggest one our the biggest assumption is on uh in general policies being implemented um we've been rather bullish on policies being implemented by 2025 across the board and so that takes a strong concerted effort globally um i think that would be the largest question mark um going both in the direction of um you know what's being taxed um carbon pricing and so on so we see your screen but it's a blank white screen um that's unfortunately let me try again how about now yeah perfect um so that's um one thing being the policy second one carbon price um we've implemented a carbon price that we think is doable starting at $40 and then towards the end so it's of 2080 going up to or it's $80 gradually rising um however um again sort of looking on a global scale implementing carbon pricing schemes very strong effort um the airline industry is only just implementing a scheme that's global starting next year and that's taken them uh since the early 2000s to really when they started working on it so again um you know a lot of international push needed there um two other levers that are significant now as we mentioned earlier um the growth but um then looking at so purely technology to go back to the question um we were also very bullish on energy storage to push renewables and um there um we've assumed quite a significant cost decrease over the next years which seems to be in line with current trends however also doing a sensitivity on that doesn't actually change the overall picture too much except for the market price of energy and so that's a significant one to look out for especially when we're talking about equity of implementation um and also looking at new technologies being implemented again we have new technologies that we think could be realistically available in 2030 and then start coming online around 2040 um also doing sensitivity on that um even if it's only in 2080 it doesn't change too much however um if too many of these assumptions fall all of a sudden you have a big uh rippling effect so yeah again there on the new technology side um quite a lot of or we're quite bullish that things will happen um from thorium uh to nuclear fusion but um there is a lot of work and a lot of uncertainty to be dealt with thank you okay great so uh some uh Arun do you uh do you have anything you'd like to ask now or should we open it up to the rest of the class the quick question i mean if since you have all worked on this are there any sort of common understanding of what are the breakthroughs that are needed if any first of all do you think there are needed any any breakthroughs needed in technology and if so what are those so I think for 23 one thing we discussed briefly and that also came out of one of these sessions is long-term energy storage um looking at um SOC catalysers so being able to produce hydrogen um from renewable energy at a cost that is competitive um the trend that was presented yesterday by Stefan Reichelstein um also supported that um being in progress I think that's a key enabler that's really needed um for having such a strong renewables presence also when with the seasonal fluctuations in mind um I can speak for t19 um so I think in addition to technology or aside from technology all three of us groups also did a heavy carbon tax um which was unfortunate but it seems to be a strong policy that at least all three of our groups has implemented um kind of a necessary evil to achieve two degrees uh speaking on technology on our side um smart building infrastructure um was can essentially crucial to long-term um energy or electricity decreasing essentially by 2100 and trying to get the graph up I can share my screen by 2100 century buildings and industry electric took up the vast majority of our final energy consumption so um achieving better energy efficiency um will be crucial in order to properly bring this down um it's a large sector by its nature but smart building technology um is that iot for a smart infrastructure um I believe that the sort of connected technology is going to be crucial a long-term growth so energy efficiency energy storage with its hydrogen or perhaps other long-term storage and also perhaps um I heard carbon removal did we hear that I think there was some aggressive goals for that and would people agree that that is something important or you don't think breakthroughs are needed in that for us carbon removal was more of a long-term solution than something that can really help us right now so for our team be achieved 10 gigatons of carbon the outside removal per year but we're currently producing 40 gigatons of carbon removal so this isn't going to be kind of a breakout solution or like a magic bullet to bring us to zero um it's going to be kind of a long-term solution in our scenario that once we've actually properly reduced carbon emissions carbon removal can start to take over after that right so I do want to jump in and answer both questions they are related um and put up our presentation in the meantime um so a few things I do I definitely agree that storage whether in the form of batteries hydrogen or some other means will be very critical moving forward if we are going to be so reliant on renewables particularly solar and wind that are naturally intermittent sources um and other than that um my gut reaction to this question is that um it's really going to be a contribution in all sectors uh it's funny uh that's probably the one thing that I've learned the most from this experience um coming into stanford I really wanted to create a new technology and like make me uh make a significant impact in this challenge uh which obviously I still want to do but um I've come to realize how important the contributions of every sector will be and uh it's kind of like a throw the entire kitchen sink at this problem um because that's how big the problem is um and yeah so uh that that would be my uh my big takeaway and in addition um it was also interesting to me that uh if you did implement a new tech a completely new technology uh that that many times wasn't the most effective way of um reaching two degree c it actually had very small impacts in our case um no impact on emissions or on uh on temperature just more of an economic impact um and I think that's because of the model takes into account the amount of time it would take to commercialize and so there really has to be of course a new technology would be great uh but I think there needs to be an emphasis on developing the technologies we already have as well okay so just raise your hand and uh and I will call on you so and and I really do want to get reactions like for you know like you've heard these proposals like you go oh heck no that's not going to be right where you're where your own scenarios very very different and yeah left to yeah okay um um my uncle uh you go first yeah did I get your name right yeah you did Sally thank you very much it's like my uncle but without the le at the end of my uncle perfect um so I have a technical background engineering by academia and I've been working in finance for close to two decades so I came at this in a very objective manner what I was surprised about was how emotional a ride it actually was going through the simulator and as we went through it there were some certain surprises and I think a lot of the other teams saw this as well that some of the actions we assumed outright would have a great impact didn't um and I think Josh just alluded to it that you need you need to throw the kitchen sink at it there's no signal magic bullet so I guess the question for me for the teams was how did it make you feel because at some point we were surprised concerned alarmed but now we feel optimistic committed and confident so it's been a great experience but it was more from the emotional side than more the more objective side that I was expecting and definitely answer or I can answer for team 19 the 19th lever on my side um so maybe don't mind me sharing my screen once again um I can show one example for where I run into that controversy as kind of an electrical engineer um so one thing that we know this that um was that electrification is definitely crucial for achieving two degrees but that said renewable stuff like solar panel technology um it's really hard to increase the efficiency of that so as like an electrical engineer I was coming into thinking okay let's just replace all the land that the deforest put a solar panel everywhere and you've solved the problem but it's not that easy um and when you start to quantify things like what does a large carbon tax mean oh it means 10% increase in gas prices if you compare that to the um era um and it may not embargoes from two years ago what actually a difference does that make on livelihood um so that was definitely an emotional struggle um trying to figure out I'm trying to put the numbers on it like we did a whole case study on what does our policy do to the United States um but trying to conceive of what does that mean um for real people in real scenarios that's definitely being an emotional journey for me thinking um what does energy optimization mean in the real world so I really enjoyed this um in realist competition as a means to see and transfer us that gap I think uh speaking for teams to importable energy you know you talked about the emotions behind the experience and I think one of the things we definitely experienced was you know on that first pastor when we're playing with all the detailed all the detailed mechanics we were really looking at like okay we want to be realistic we want to really capture something that can potentially happen that we could potentially achieve this goal in a realistic scenario not by us just like well we got to go as high as we possibly can on carbon price or you know throwing a breakthrough in five years um and you know doing that you get to you know in terms of greenhouse gases emitted and in terms of the global temperature increase you get to around like 2.5 2.4 degrees and then you know moving on from there when you start to play with it further the sensitivities of the things that you implement just drop so substantially so at the beginning when you know okay it starts at 4.1 and you get to 3.4 without thinking all of a sudden you're at 2.2 and you're playing with stuff and it just seems like you've got to you know tear a leg off to actually get down to the Paris Agreement and what we're actually trying to accomplish and that I think was the most kind of frustrating and eye-opening part of the experience entirely for our team yeah I can take it again for team two um I'm not sure if this is a this is the last question but I before I answered the question I wanted to shout out the rest of my team I've been slacking them with some answers as well so this has been a really big team effort so thank you to Christina Diego McKenna and Coon um I'll put some of our thoughts that we had um on the screen but to be honest I'll just uh speak from the heart and say that uh for me this was a uh grounding experience um in a sense that you really realize like man there's a lot of a lot of things that need to happen uh in order to reach two degrees C which is actually the bare minimum requirement really uh Paris Agreement uh wants us to get to 1.5 degree C but it's also uh inspiring uh to the um 117 people that are currently in in the chat um that there's a lot of work to be done and when there's challenges there's opportunities um and we are the people at the front lines that have the capacity to meet these challenges um so it made me just want to work maybe it made me excited to start school next week and get started um thank you also I'm going to pass the voting on to Jenny um but to aid in your voting I'm going to put back up this slide um to which I have added the uh the team names uh so hopefully that will be helpful uh in keeping oops I gotta get those out of the way in keeping everybody straight um and with that uh Jenny uh go ahead and uh tell us what to do for sure so everyone has one vote um you can vote for any team including your own team um then if you have presented feel free to raise your hand using the raise hand button so that people can find the face uh and match it with the name if you want to if that helped you to vote um so let's finish voting in the next uh two to three minutes um we'll see how many votes come in and then see um let us know if you need more time um but I think that should be enough time for us to vote so I am very thrilled to announce as our winners team number two yeah congratulations congratulations to all