 Welcome everyone to our panel on greenwashing. My name is Someni Sangupta. I am the International Climate Correspondent for The New York Times, and I'm the lead writer for our climate newsletter called Climate Forward. So you've seen all the buzzwords. One company says it will become climate positive, another promises to be carbon free. Many claim they'll be net zero by 2050. Including, by the way, some oil and gas companies. As citizens, consumers, investors, holders of retirement accounts, we rarely know what they mean. So much so that a couple of years ago, a survey asked shoppers about company sustainability claims. Guess what percentage said they trust those claims? 20%. Another survey in Europe, half of respondents said they couldn't distinguish between true and false green claims. And when a research group called the New Climate Institute recently looked at the promises made by 25 large multinationals, most of them got very low marks at actually reducing their emissions. So companies have a climate problem as well as a trust problem. So green, that's what we are here to talk about today. Greenwashing, a term used to describe unproven claims about a company's environmental record. We have a stellar panel with us. Vice President Al Gore, to many of us, you're known as a former vice president of the United States. I suspect to many more, you're known for your Oscar winning documentary and Inconvenient Truth, which truly changed the global conversation on this subject of climate change. You're an investor, you're the founder of the Climate Reality Project, a nonprofit that works on tackling climate change. You're also a Nobel Peace Prize winner. Welcome. Lea Vermelin, you were elected to parliament in Denmark at the age of 30. You've led your parliament's energy and climate committees in the past. You're now minister for the environment in a country where voters are very, very concerned about climate and environmental issues and where two thirds of your country's electricity comes from renewables. Next to you, we have Ronald Voster. You're the CEO of APG Asset Management. You manage about 600 billion euros on behalf of your clients who are pension funds. You look out for what companies are doing to manage climate risk, not just now, but in the future when those pensions are needed. And finally, next to you, we have Dr. Andrew Forrest. You're the chairman of Fortescue Metals, an iron ore mining company in Australia. When my colleague Damien Cave wrote a story about you, he said last year Fortescue had burned through 700 million liters of diesel and released 2.2 million tons of greenhouse gases. But that you, Dr. Forrest, intend to fully decarbonize by 2030 and pivot to renewable energy. Damien, in that story, described you as a man who wants to, quote, reform manufacturing, stymie, big oil, and help save all of us from climate catastrophe. So welcome to all of you. If you are planning to ask a question, please do stand up. So we can film you, we can see you better. And if you're sharing on your social media channels, you can use the hashtag W-E-F-22. So let's jump in. Semeny, I apologize for not alerting you to this in advance I meant to. But as an American, I have to say something about the horrific events in the United States. I worked on gun control legislation for much of my career. Nearly 10 years ago, 20 children were slaughtered in their classrooms in Newtown, Connecticut, and now nearly 10 years later, it has happened again in Uvalde, Texas. As a parent and a grandparent, I cannot imagine the pain and horrific loss that the families of that community are feeling today as they wake up with an empty bed where their child should be. And once again, we're confronted with this uniquely American form of devastation. Doesn't happen in any other country as it does in the U.S., yet another mass shooting. And once again, we'll go through a painfully familiar cycle of grief and outrage. And after 19 children in elementary school are shot dead in their classrooms, is enough? Enough? After black women and men are killed a few days earlier in a hate-fueled and racist attack on a grocery store in Buffalo, New York, is that enough? How many children, mothers, fathers, and family members and loved ones will it take? Will be stolen from us before there's an action that's appropriate? From Columbine, where I personally went after that tragedy to meet with the families of the victims to Uvalde yesterday, America has failed to keep our children safe. And why? Because of the absolute strangled hold that the gun lobby has on our democracy. It's time for those who have obstructed the common-sense measures that all reasoning men and women know are necessary to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of mass murderers and put the lives of their fellow Americans over their quest for campaign contributions. It's long past time to pass common-sense kind of legislation. And I thank you for giving me the courtesy of saying that. It's in my country. This is top of mind and occupying our hearts. And so thank you. We'll turn to the subject at hand. Thank you very much, Vice President, for noting that. And I can tell you that just hearing about it, reading about this incident, shakes me again to the core because I'm a parent. And I send my child to school to be safe. So thank you for saying that. The connections to what we are talking about are also abundantly clear because we have known the risks in both cases. There are common-sense measures in both cases. There's the influence of certain industries in both cases. And there is public safety involved in both cases. So that is one of the things that I would really like us to engage in when we're talking about policy issues and sustainability issues. It's not its own box. It has to do with many other things. Some of the same reasons why the United States has been incapable of responding to these tragedies are the same reasons, lobbying, campaign contributions, the capture of policymaking, the control of politicians with money and lobbyists that it has been impossible to pass climate legislation. Our democracy has been paralyzed, bought, captured. It has to stop. It is tempting to dismiss all of the climate pledges one hears from companies as greenwashing. So can I start with you, Vice President? Do we have any reason to believe that all these promises aren't just greenwashing? How can companies assure the public and regulators that they're legit? Well, some of these pledges and promises are legit. No question about it. More than 2,000 businesses right now are working with the Science-Based Targets Initiative to create meaningful action plans to reduce their emissions. And they should be applauded. I have no doubt that Andrew is absolutely committed. I have gone over his plans. Just stand by and watch. And there are some others who I know are committed. However, that is, unfortunately, more the exception than the rule. According to an S&P report on more than 5,000 companies, only 37% have any emissions target at all for their Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions. Only 24% have net zero targets. And of the companies that have set emissions targets, less than half are aligned with the Science-Based approach to even 2 degrees, much less 1.5 degrees C. Only 17% of the companies responsible for the most emissions have medium term targets aligned with a 1.5 degree pathway. 58% of companies do not even report their Scope 3 emissions, let alone have a plan to reduce them. And in a recent poll of 1,500 business executives from 16 countries, only 36% of them said that their companies have tools to measure their progress on sustainability. Only 17% are actually using tools to actually make progress. Almost 60% say that their own company has overstated its sustainability efforts. They frequently refer to their own companies as being engaged in green hypocrisy. Greenwashing is a major obstacle to solving the climate crisis. It is made up of falsehoods, clever PR, and it has to stop. Ronald Vaster, yes, please, yes. I agree. And also, I think we should not be too cynical about it. And some other numbers, we invest a lot in green sustainability and social bonds, and we analyze those bonds ourselves. Yeah, roughly a quarter of it would not qualify according to our own standards. And I know we are talking already about some segmentation before that. I'd like to introduce some optimism as well. I really do see companies we invest in that are starting to make a difference. Sometimes it is also difficult to see the overall system of things. We don't have uniform standards, integral solutions, and some things are really actually happening. Companies that are doing well are usually modest about what they're doing. Companies that tell great stories, great narratives that you should be careful about. Big pages in a newspaper, we do this, this, and this. Yeah, maybe they do a project like that. But if you look at the integral company, you should be careful. So you look at different things. Talk with the stakeholders of a company. Is it consistent? Do companies walk the talk? Are they modest? And how we analyze companies, we always make a combination of different data sources. Never trust the claims that rating agencies search make. But we can use the data input to do the analysis. I do see improvement. We have a full portfolio of what we call SDI, Sustainable Development, Calls Related Investments. That's a great portfolio. In the overall portfolio, we have an inclusion policy, where we include companies that, according to us, are doing well. Yes, I agree with some negative things you often see. But I don't want to give up hope here that we are improving. Time is running out. Fair enough. I just want to follow up on one thing you said. There are no clear standards. So for you, as you're looking at a portfolio of companies that you've invested in on behalf of your clients, is it straightforward to figure out what emissions a company is actually reducing and how much of it is offsets? Is that straightforward? It's definitely not straightforward. But you can use different sources. Accounting, different data sources of research institutes. And you can do your own analysis. And of course, when you follow the chain, you can see whether things are consistent or not. So it's not straightforward, but it's coming right. I just want to say that, as a young portfolio manager, I was looking at annual reports, looking at financial numbers, according to a certain accounting standards. And I needed to correct that to financial numbers that made sense to me from an investment perspective. When we look at GDP growth of a company, we know that the statistics are not always that good. So, yes, be careful, but also we are becoming better. The data are improving. And I think for climate, we're sort of maybe not halfway. There's other things like biodiversity that we're only starting. So we're going too slow, I agree with that. Right, Andrew. Well, I'd like to hear from the minister, actually. I think you're really in the hot seat, minister. You're a minister for the environment, but I don't see your responsibilities different to anyone here because we're all slowly cooking. And I hear the argument, but our measurement is improving. I can just tell you, as an ecologist, looking across the entire world of threats to the end of global warming, the primary threat to the end of global warming is greenwashing. It's becoming more sophisticated, using better and better lawyers, using these sleaze words like lowering emissions. Yeah, well, in one project, in one part of the country by a molecule, but that will stand up in a court of law. So I think it's the intent, which should be held to public trial. If your intent is to deceive, oh, my goodness, have I got a few here? How many do you want if the intent was to deceive to, say, extend the fossil fuels sector by talking about hydrogen? You know, I've had to explain so many times, I'm not in favour of hydrogen. Hydrogen is cooking this planet, but there's one, and only one fuel, which will stop global warming, and that's hydrogen made from renewable electricity. Green hydrogen, that's our only fuel. Now, fudge it beyond that, you know, face up with the scientists, to the ecologists, to the statisticians, they'll walk you through the lies. I want to come back to you on the hydrogen. Minister Vermelin, you represent your citizens. What is the government's role in ensuring that citizens aren't misled? You know, in Europe, there's been some notable examples of companies that get called out for greenwashing, for false advertising. Recently, there was an announcement that a climate activist group plans to sue an airline for its advertising slogan. What kinds of regulations, policies do you think would be helpful for the public, and what do you think would be realistic? Well, it's good to know that I'm in the hot seat, having to show the way, at least for our consumers in Denmark, but also in Europe, I would say, because we collaborate closely with the other European countries. And my big worry is that we see a population in a lot of countries wanting to do the right thing, and we need the demand side in order to get the businesses moving. And so that is also why we are seeing all of these green claims. And of course, that's a good development that we see so many businesses also here, showing that they want to transform the way that they do business. But what we need to do is hold them accountable. So in the European Union, we are trying to build with the taxonomy a way to not lose trust in our population so that they can trust the labeling that is there, so that they can trust that when we do finance and say it's green, we are not just shifting the burden from, let's say, climate to biodiversity. So I think for me, it's two things, getting away through the jungle for the population, but also making sure that we don't just look at one thing, like the climate, but that we look more broadly on how we do it. I mean, Ronald, do you describe how difficult it is for you to look through data sources to figure out a company's claims? Imagine an ordinary member of the public, like me, as a citizen. I am going to buy a pair of jeans for my child. I not only want to know what percentage of that is using recycled fabrics. Maybe they'll tell me that, but should I also have the right to know whether this company is using renewable energy in its supply chain? Whether this company is using its influence to lobby for more renewable energy in its... Yeah, and I think regulation helps, but it's not the only answer to the problem. So, happy with the European Union coming up with strong rules about things. And at the same time, we know that many pages of rules are not necessary changing behavior. So, I think it's necessary, but it's also important to start to move, I think, from a belief and the belief that we are trying to get that into the companies by engaging actively with the companies and talking a lot together with other investors. And there's more and more investors joining forces. I think many years ago, we were sort of one of the few investment managers that asked the attention. Now, there's so many, and I think the pressure is increasing. And that adds to the regulation. I think it's needed. It should not become a box-ticking exercise. And it doesn't, so I think it's well thought out, but it's a combination. Minister, yes, please. Well, I just wanted to add that, of course, as an individual, you have the right to know. For instance, on textiles, I think that's going to be one of the next new things compared to plastics, where we really also see an uprise in people demanding better regulation. And so, it all comes down to circularity. I think changing the business model so that it's accountable not only on one thing, one measurement, but that we get that systemic change that we really want in our economy. So that is why we need to see the interlinkages between climate, not only the carbon footprint, but the total global footprint that we have. And so if everyone lived like we do in Denmark, we would need four planets. And so that is why we cannot put it on the individual itself. So I think you should do informed choices. But we also have to take the responsibility as governments to make that structural change. So I have good news on this front. We are about to enter an age of radical transparency. I have been among those who have formed a new coalition called Climate Trace. TRACE stands for Tracking Real-Time Atmospheric Carbon Emissions. It's a coalition of artificial intelligence, technology companies, NGOs, and universities using data from 300 existing satellites from multiple countries, ground-sea and air-based sensors, and internet data streams to use machine learning to create algorithms for every single subsector of the economy. This October, we will publish the world's first inventory of exactly where the greenhouse gas emissions are coming from and in what amounts. Last year, we published the first global inventory on a nation-state level. This year, we will start with the 500 largest emissions sources in every sector of the economy, in every country and region. Many firms have given us access to their monitoring of their emissions so that we can ground truth the algorithms. We don't use what they give us, but we use it to perfect the machine learning. It is going to make a dramatic difference so that investors, supply chain managers, NGOs, prioritizing their campaigning activities, financial institutions, if they want to know where the emissions are coming from, scope one, scope two, scope three, upstream and downstream, it is all going to be laid out for the world to see. It will help us truth squad whether what the trend line is based on their promises. You've mentioned these scopes for a while. So I want you to explain really what we mean by that. So a company can have emissions associated with its own operations. So a bank, the energy that its headquarters uses or the emissions associated with extracting iron ore, in your case. But then that's fairly small. The bulk of emissions are coming from outside these company operations. So what are the portfolio of companies doing that a bank is investing in? Or what about the emissions from the steel that your iron ore produces? So that's scope three. How are we doing on that? And why is that important? Scope three is very important because, as you say, it's the bulk of the emissions. And to be candid, that is a challenge for many companies today. And it's further complicated because it has two parts. There's the downstream and the upstream. But responsible companies have organized themselves to begin calculating precisely. Now, climate trade is going to make it an awful lot easier. But there are companies who go out and say, we are net zero. And when you ask them what they mean, they're only talking about their scope one emissions. I've heard oil companies say that they are net zero and they're reducing their emissions because the energy they use to produce the oil or to refine the products, they become more efficient at that. But what about the emissions from all the product, all of what they're doing? Burning what they make. They're selling. Absolutely. And what about the banks that are financing it? Now, in Washington, DC, you're too young to remember a writer named Michael Kinsley, who was a brilliant writer. And he once said that for politicians in DC, the definition of a gaffe is when they accidentally tell the truth. Well, last week, an executive in charge of ESG and sustainable investing for one of the largest banks in the world committed that kind of gaffe. He said, who cares if Miami is under six meters of water later this century? Well, who cares? It's a relevant question. And he's not the only one who is committing hypocrisy because if you look at the 60 largest banks, last year alone, they financed another $742 billion to develop new oil and gas deposits. And 44 of the 60 had signed the net zero banking alliance pledge. So with great fanfare. With great fanfare. I mean, this is, now, he was suspended. This executive was. But there are others who are in the same boat. Yes, I wondered at the time whether he was saying the quiet parts out loud. Yeah. Madam, can I give you some really seriously lived experiences? Please, yes. So my lived experiences, bad, p, rare, tend to a fortiscan mental group and valet. We're huge shippers. We ship our iron ore all over the world and it's probably holding up this building we're in. That shipping industry, if it was a country, would be the eighth largest emitter in the world. But if you just take those iron ore producers, the top four, our scope three emissions are greater than Russia. So I feel a very deep responsibility here. And the reason why I'm so intolerant of greenwashing is because when I speak to my fellow chairmen and chief executives and I've seen their advertisements, I said, just tell me what you're doing different. Don't tell me about a little project you've got running somewhere, which is a fraction of the size of your advertising budget. Tell me what you're actually doing differently. And I run into a stunned silence. Therefore, advocated to the mining industry, we have the technology right now to run our ships on Green Ammonia. That can happen. We'll have the first ship in operation, pollution-free November this year. We have the technology right now to run our trains without any emissions whatsoever on Green Ammonia or Green Hydrogen. We have technology right now to run our trucks, our fixed plant, everything on green electricity or green hydrogen. Now, why aren't we doing it? We're not doing it because you're getting away with greenwashing. You're getting away with not being held to account until companies are really seriously held to account by friends like all of us. Then they're going to keep on doing it. You've got to ask the question, what are you doing differently? And if the answer is some paltry little example or planting some trees, say you're not doing anything differently, show me the difference in your operations. Show me how you're reconfiguring your operations entirely so you go pollution-free. And I need, you need, we all need these companies held to account, which is why I find it so abhorrent that we look the other way on greenwashing. I want to come back to you, but I want to just remind the audience that we're going to start taking questions. So please prepare one. Keep it a question and please stand up. So the mic can be handed to you. I want to come back to you, Andrew Forrest, just with one thing. We're hearing a lot about hydrogen, even in these last few days. So can you tell us what your concerns are about selling hydrogen as the clean fuel of the future? I gather you have some strong feelings about this. Look, I do, because part of the extension, which I'd like to speak to Vice-President Gore about, is to measure methane emissions. Methane is horrifically worse than carbon dioxide for warming up our planet, heating up our planet. So if you produce hydrogen from any other source than totally renewable, you're cooking our planet. It doesn't matter how you advertise it, blue or gray or whatever. If it's not renewable energy at less than a kilo or a kilo of carbon per kilo of hydrogen, then you're cooking the planet. And what makes me feel ill is that I'm hearing oil and gas companies all over the world talking about a hydrogen future. And I know every single kilo that they produce will have zero emissions in your car or your factory or your ship, but cook the planet where it was made. And we've got to stop that. We've got to all recognise the science is clear. Carbon sequestration or carbon use in sequestration is a flat out lie. It produces way more emissions than it ever saves. It works one in 20 times, which as a statistician, as an ecologist, is called an anomaly. It doesn't work. It works in a soundbite. It works in a political ad or a corporate ad, but it doesn't work in science. So every time you're here, oh, we're going to do carbon sequestration, I think you're just lying to your shareholders. There was a question. So please do stand up so the mic can be handed to you. Yes, please. Thank you, Val. I took off to you and found the Ziravia. We're a hydrogen electric aviation company. And my question is about a... About hydrogen. A green hydrogen. Thank you. That question is about the form of greenwashing that I think is subtle but important. There are a number of industries. My industry included for which carbon is only a small part of the climate impact. So there is research out there that says aviation because of the high altitude NOx and other emissions is actually three times more impacts than CO2 alone. And Andrew, you mentioned the methane emissions for some of the process out there. So how important is that problem and how do we solve it to avoid that type of greenwashing? Let me say what Andrew said about methane as an example of something other than CO2. CO2 is by far and away the biggest source of global warming pollution. But methane molecule for molecule captures 84 times as much heat as a molecule of CO2. However, it only has a 20-year or 12-year lifetime in the atmosphere. If you're constantly replenishing it, then it doesn't matter. It's really the worse than CO2. Nitrous oxides also. Climate trace is going to measure all of them. Now let me say there is another form of greenwashing as well. Last year, the largest oil and gas companies shouted from the rooftops that they are tripling their investments in renewables and carbon capture. And sure enough, they did. They've tripled it all the way up to 4% of their spending, which means 96% of their spending is still going to develop more and more oil and gas deposits. Now the International Energy Agency has said repeatedly if we want a chance to save the future of civilization by staying below 1.5 degrees, we have to stop this development of new oil and gas deposits. We have all that we need. And renewable energy is coming down steadily in cost. It's already a cheaper source of electricity than burning fossil fuels. Electric vehicles within the next one to three years for all models will be cheaper in the EV version than their internal combustion counterparts. But the oil and gas industry wants to greenwash by saying, oh, they may solve this for us. Well, it's like the cartoon hippopotamus in the Walt Disney movie that danced ballet. In real life, a hippopotamus can't stand up on its hind legs. And in real life, oil and gas companies have different cultures, different capital flows, different histories, different personnel, different margins. They're not going to do it. Only one oil and gas fossil fuel company in the entire world has made the transition to renewables. And that's Orsted in Denmark. And once they did, by the way, their value went up 5x. But the others are just still engaging in this insidious effort to fool people into thinking that they've got this and that the problem is not so bad and that they're even selling zero carbon oil and gas, some of them. Well, you can call that greenwashing or you could call it just a flat-out lie. It's a very interesting question. What some of the oil companies are going to do with these record high profits? Whether they're going to use those profits to invest in renewables or simply buy back their stock. They do to a certain extent. Yes, we have a question here. So Guy Roelnik, University of Chicago. So to reiterate what we heard from some of the panelists, should we just call any carbon offsetting greenwashing and when? That's an excellent question. Yeah, I think, look, as a company who right now is using carbon offsets, I am getting out of them as quick as I can. I've studied them and studied them and I can tell you, I think they're on the edge of fraudulent or they are fraudulent. It's one or the other. If you're planting trees, where trees are going to grow anywhere, anyway, don't think you're doing the world a favor. I disagree in part. I disagree in part. Essentially, I agree. But the Science-Based Targets Initiative, which is the most respected organization studying this, says that they can play a minor role if they are evaluated very carefully. And what they say is, a company has to reduce its emissions by 90 to 95% and then if there are validated offsets, then they may play a role. There is a lot of capital going into the development of low-head hydro and different renewable energy sources in developing countries that is coming from funds that count as offsets. So they've been way overused. They are oversold. You have to have additionality. They can't be something that wouldn't have happened anyway. You have to have permanence. One big forest just burned down that was used for offsets. They can't be duplicative. They can't have a situation where the company cutting down the forest just moves over to the adjacent track and continues the destruction. But with those safeguards, I think they do can play a limited responsible role. Just the complexity of that description doesn't give me any confidence. Fair enough. And also, there are offsets and offsets. So tree planting is one form. Depends on what kind of trees you're planting, where you're planting them, but there are other forms. So again, it's a lot for an individual taking a flight to take in and absorb and distinguish between whether those offsets are going to do anything or not. Next question, please. Yes, someone who is not a man, please. Thank you. I'm glad to represent and glad that there are two women on the panel. Hopefully next time we'll have even more. So we're talking about big companies, huge companies, but also there are the SMEs. And SMEs are similar to individuals. Even when they're trying to be more environmentally friendly, sometimes they end up greenwashing because of issues that they don't understand. Unintended consequences mainly. So are governments doing anything to try to educate SMEs or support them in their move towards becoming more environmentally friendly? Another issue is I own an SME. And it's really expensive whenever I want to shift to sustainable packaging, whenever I want to do something towards that mission. So what support are you offering SMEs or do you suggest to offer to them? That's a great question for either a government person or an investor. I'd welcome what investors want to see their businesses do. Well, I'll just say that quickly, that climate change is going to make it easier for SMEs to accurately trace exactly what the emissions are. But go ahead. Well, I think what we've been trying to do in Denmark at least is go sector by sector. So doing climate partnerships on each sector so that we can have SMEs on board as well as the big companies, saying what is actually the barriers for us to go into a more green future? So what can the government do and what is on the companies to do? And part of that is also removing some of the incentives that are there to stay on the same path that you've always been on. And so for instance, now we're discussing EPI a lot and we are in Denmark as well. So trying to build in that model where the incentive is to do it the green way. And then you have to pay up if you do it the old way. So I think we can do a lot on the government side to make it easier for SMEs to follow the green path. And there we really also need the big ones to lean in and show the way together with governments. And I think our climate partnerships has been a very good way for us to know that we go through every sector and not leaving one out and thereby maybe causing more harm because we only look, for instance, on the carbon footprint. We have less than six minutes left. So a show of hands from one... Can I add something from the investment side? Yes, please, very quickly. Of course, we do not only invest in big companies but also in financial capital, private equity, smaller companies. And the same ESG standards apply to those companies and we try to talk with those companies as well. So I think, yeah, we would like to offer help through our portfolio there. You don't see it quite often. Usually, indeed, there's a focus on the large companies but there are more and more investors, impact investors, particularly but also the larger investors that do offer some help to smaller companies as well. Okay, real quickly. One, two, three. Okay, yes, please. Thank you so much. So we've seen recently at Tesla getting kickoff out of SCP-500 and also the problem with HSBC. And I think there is a huge disconnect between public perception of ESG and I'm talking about ESG globally and what this actually means for our company perception. And the biggest problem is that journalists, CEOs, politicians and investors are not scientists and we don't know the deep science or the deep jargon around all of this stuff and we are communicating poorly. So I think my question to you is, should we all be deeply educated about these topics that we care so much or is there an alternative solution to how we actually are communicating about this? And in addition, I would just love to know about your perception about how satellites can actually track emissions across the supply chain and allocate these emissions at the company level because we know how hard this is to be done in other measurements. And I'm just wondering if this actually solves the problem or brings more confusion to this market. I'll take the last part at first and then turn the ESG question over. Satellites can directly measure methane emissions and that ability is improving. CO2 emissions cannot at present be measured directly but they can because the column of air had the noise to signal ratio is very large. However, we can see the smokestacks, we can see an invisible light, we can see it in infrared, we can see the ripples in the cooling pond, we can see the internet data streams and then we can ground truth the algorithms and test them with machine learning to verify that they are giving us an accurate read. We get data from 300 different satellites. Planet Labs is one of them but we also have satellites from China, from Korea, from the European Union and it gives us a complete line scan of the planet every 24 hours and soon it'll be down to every six hours. On ESG, I know the SEC is trying to set up some standards. It's been delayed. But for me, I think it's a personal goal to make better use of the knowledge that is available. We know too little as investors. For instance, about biodiversity, we try to use knowledge from Cambridge University, knowledge from indigenous people. I think we are indeed too arrogant in a way not to incorporate all the knowledge. We don't know everything as investors and we should make better use of all the knowledge that is available, so you're right. Question, please. I'm from South Pole. We work with a lot of companies who are doing science based targets and it's zero and I can tell you a lot of companies are very scared of being accused of greenwashing. And so my question to the panel is, what are we doing with the companies who are doing nothing at all? Because if the alternative of doing something and being accused is doing nothing and you're getting away with it, I haven't solved anything. So greenwashing is an important topic but what are we doing about all these companies that you, President Gore, mentioned who are doing nothing? We're gonna publicly expose exactly what their emissions are, radical transparency. And can I just add? I'd rather a company burn its fossil fuels and be honest about it than greenwash and say I'm converting it to hydrogen than selling something which is a carbon-free fuel because that's a straight greenwash. It's much better that they're honest and shut up and do nothing because I think duping the public is worse. We have one minute left. Is there a very quick question here, sir? Yes. Thank you very much. My question is specifically around Beath and Glasgow in Paris, the commitment for emerging markets from governments saying we're gonna commit $100 billion every year. The greenwashing that is coming from developed countries in supporting developing countries in transition. How do you address that and how can we make sure that there is capital available for that transition? It has to come mainly from the private sector. The developed wealthy countries have had trouble even getting $100 billion. We need $4 to $5 trillion per year. Here's the problem. If you're in Nigeria and you wanna go to the capital markets to build a new solar farm, the interest rates you pay will be seven times higher than the interest rates paid by rich countries. The World Bank and the other multilateral development banks are supposed to take the top layers of risk off. The World Bank has been missing in action. David Malpalas, I'll call out his name. He is the equivalent of a climate denier. He has done nothing. And the Secretary General of the UN, his climate staff has publicly called him missing in action. President Biden ought to replace him and he can if he musters the vote among the shareholders. Well, I'm glad someone on the panel made news today. Yes. I'm afraid we have to call this to a close. I thank you all for your fine questions and for your deep engagement on this issue. As it happens, Climate Forward devoted last Friday's letter to how to spot greenwashing for ordinary people. So I do invite you to sign up for the newsletter. How can we get climate forward? You can go to my social media feeds and get a sign up link. Thank you very much. Thank you.