 So, now let's move to pragmatic examples of carbon capture and sequestration solutions and we'll start with you Matt. Thank you for having made the trip out of the US to be with us today. So you have founded and you are the CEO of Air Capture, a nice name by the way for a carbon capture solution. Can you tell us what the solution is about? Yeah, I'm happy to. Thank you first very much for having us here today. So Air Capture is a company that develops direct air capture technology. And what we do is we build machines that have a fan and the fan pulls air through the machine and the CO2 carbon dioxide from the air is collected on the surface of substrates that are inside the fan and about 15 minutes we collect all the CO2 and then we inject heat in the form of typically waste steam or low temperature steam that releases the CO2 in the contactor surface, which we then collect and try to do something useful with, but we're selling the CO2 into various different markets and converting it into different products such as fuels, beverage, carbonation, agriculture, interesting. And Matt, so at what stage are you in development of the solution and how fast can you bring it to industrial scale? That's a great question. So at present what we are doing is we're commercializing the technology. So we've built several commercial machines based on a large scale development platform and we're working on selling the CO2 into a variety of different markets. What I like to say is that the world's economy runs on carbon. Carbon is in all the products that we use, so many of the products that run the global economy. So we're primarily working in beverage, carbonation, we're producing dry ice for the cold chain, CO2 is used very predominantly in agricultural purposes. We have projects converting CO2 into chemicals and fertilizers, plastics, even battery materials for the energy transition and fuels and energy products. Wonderful. So thank you, we'll come back to you in a moment. That's also a question for you. The air capture solution is a deep engineering solution, so certainly it's capital intensive to develop long cycles and how do you match these long cycles with the financing available on the market? Is it easy and how do you see affordability moving forward? In other words, how costly is it for companies to remove carbon? How do you see your solution addressing this in a cost affordable way? That's a great question. I mean, I think it comes down to initially the question between avoidance and permanence. One pathway is to avoid carbon emissions, but that could also be counted as taking postcombustion emissions and sequestering them, but permanent removal is different. So what we're focused on is permanent removal of CO2 from the atmosphere by capturing the CO2 and then trying to do something useful with it. When you come to the question of scale and timeframe, this I think really focuses us very much on our thesis, which is solve for scale. If we take a look at the latest IPCC's AR6 report and we look at the required timeframes that are necessary in order to avoid two degrees of warming, and we take a look at how much capacity addition of negative carbon infrastructure technology is required to have a reasonable confidence interval of avoiding the worst existential threats of climate change, it is quite significant. We're talking about needing to scale this technology to the point where we're at about 1.5 to 1.8 gigatons of new capacity year over year by 2045, and that's only to have about a 90% confidence interval of avoiding two degrees of warming. And I'll say here now that 1.5 degrees, avoiding 1.5 degrees is totally impossible. We will not achieve that goal. So our focus is how can we develop and scale technology as quickly as possible and get that technology to work and get on the learning curve. So we're focused on kind of two pathways. One is direct CO2 capture disequestration, we're working with injection sites like Carbfix is doing. And we're developing projects in the US here in the UAE and in Oman, where we're capturing CO2 from there and injecting it. But these are long tail projects that are high capital intensity and require specifically offtake agreements for the carbon credits. And the tenor of those offtake agreements has to match what it would require to finance those projects. That's a big problem. Right now in the market, especially within the VCM space, those offtakes are not necessarily bankable. And we have to find a way to convert those carbon credit offtakes or bilateral agreements into scalable project financing. And to move into that project financing as quickly as possible to get on a learning curve as quickly as possible. So I think the other side of the coin is where I see this technology having huge impact is an industrial decarbonization. Corporates can choose to inset this technology within their value chain and use the carbon dioxide directly within their products or to convert it into other products. And this, in many cases, has a larger impact than even in permanent removal or storage because the carbon intensity of the incumbent CO2 supply is oftentimes two, three, or four times the amount that's consumed. So one of the things that I think is challenging is as we move forward to the VCM and we think about how do we create new standards, new practices, and carbon principles, it makes a lot of sense on the nature-based side. But as we develop new engineering and hard tech solutions and as we figure out how to deploy these solutions and get them financeable, we have to be careful not to box ourselves in too much. So issues around the question of permanence is a major issue because there are certainly examples where this technology can be used to offset existing emissions and it will have a bigger impact than taking that same molecule of CO2 and putting it into the ground. It may have a three to one or a five to one impact, but that still wouldn't meet the permanence requirement. And then the question of additionality is very important because it is not necessarily, it should not necessarily be the case that a project requires, the project economics requires there to be a carbon market offtake in order to finance this infrastructure. It does two things. One is it makes the projects much harder to finance and less bankable. And two is it slows down the scale of adoption and the scale of adoption is I think the most critical part of getting the costs down, particularly as it relates to CDR technologies. Wright's law says if we double capacity, every doubling of capacity, we get about a 15 to 20% reduction in costs. So you can pick a random number right now in terms of how much it might cost to pull CO2 out of the air, call it $600 or $500 a ton. And you could say after about 60 plants that one builds, you could be well down the cost curve of well under $100 a ton, which we think is well within target of the technology we're developing. The question becomes how do you deploy that technology as rapidly as possible, get on that cost curve, but do it in a way that's financeable and bankable so that we can get to scale quickly? Definitely corporate adoption for their own industrial usage. And we see that both these solutions could be dual track, right? Both on reduction, avoidance and removal. It's either way to channel more funding and this is absolutely needed to accelerate pace and wide adoption. So this is very insightful. Thank you.