The it with you this week or I guess post weak the fourth of July, where a little less news of the day we can sit down with with experts. People who really know their field well and are making a big difference and we were introduced actually buy good friend of mine, doc, Jordan Petersen, you can follow him on twitter at bureau. luxembourg. Have that not bottom? our third, because too wide

arrogant, it's probably hard to spell- he has a book out here- best things. First, the twelve most efficient solutions to the world's poorest a global std promises. This is a man who discuss climate change. Quite a bit has studied it now. It takes a pretty reasonable approach. Rational approach will agree on some disagree. In others. regarding solutions going forward, MR lombard, thanks for being here, sir Wait? Three years, I'm I'm at well. Look at my lesson night laid onto thicker from the outset. It's okay. So let me tell you Steven, yes, that's true! Thank you yeah. I was telling him before we started filming here that my mother named me, stephen, because she'd she was okay. The nickname Steve was the only nickname, and then she decided that she hated the nickname steve and that actually it relates.

Do you know you do have a problem? It's a good, probably have become so good, an english that your accident is almost non discernible. My mom is that as a french canadian, but then maybe sometimes expressions are or tenses might be, other than people await. What's It's going on here see dyslexic like not. Oh he's, danish. Yes, that's my excuse. you don't have a very you, don't have an accent, that's really identifiable, but the you speak for languages right, Yes, I'm coming up in five. Ok,

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to spoil your day like that, but that is very impressive and my mom will get it all the time or accents just subtle enough, but still as a second language. I would not do very well in danish, so I appreciate it. That's why we are talking english and yes, thank you very much in english, you're, not even meeting me in the middle you're coming the whole way here. So I appreciate that, and now you are the president of the copenhagen copenhagen consensus center to think tank and you've been named one of the one hundred most influential people in the world by time magazine for people who who aren't necessarily familiar- and I think most people are splain to them? What is it you do and your approach is different in the world of work. change and specifically climate change sort of alarm. But we're seeing out there now That's a very good question. So fundamentally, I try to say not just What does the science tells us, because, a lot of discussion on the site. What should we do about that?

and what I try to say is we don't have infinite money. We don't have resources to just throw out everything. We really need to ask ourselves: where can we do the most good? So my conversation on climate change and all the other things that we'll talk about later is not is it a problem or not, of course, global warnings, real, it's a problem is man made. It is something that we should be concerned about, but First of all, we need to get it right on the level of concern and a lot of people think this is the end of the world is by no means the end of the world, we can get into that, and then Secondly, how do you fix it while a lot of people seem to suggest we need to do everything and the kitchen sink to fix this problem, which basically means we're gonna have very little money left for all the other problems in the world. That now wrong, because we end up spending a lot of money really poorly, but also because we All the other challenges that the world is facing. Some really trying to take a step back from this whole conversation is not about as it

It rocks, but it's much more the policies that we then make for climate change and all the other problems are these markets unfortunately often than what I think right after that, you have some people who disagree and including some scientists regarding below that. except certain premises, right, lucchese earth warming are here the cause of it, and then you get too by how much will it have catastrophic events and then for policy at the ones We are certainly discussing that our proposed urban signed can in national governing bodies fix it, but you do accept that the earth is warming. You believe that humans are the primary cause of it and the data that you were lyon for that's before people say you're paid by big oil right that'll, be you know I got nedda had to address our guide. Yes, that be a weird thing to be paid by the ethical. For, fundamentally, I'm simply taking my starting point in the EU and climate power reports. Think most people probably never read them, but you shouldn't that's

Four thousand pages are really really boring little late for five years on it, and I wanted to blow my head off, but I appreciate this spirit to relate warning gas, but if you actually read what they say and that I think is reasonable to say there there is close we get to. Standard of what global warming is they tell us Global warming is a problem. There is nothing in there that tells us. There's a city the world. So again, I'm not natural scientist and social sciences summit economy. Economists. Actually I'm a little bit of a pretend economists, I'm a political scientist, fundamentally much island. So so it's ok on hold it against. So thank you. So I tried to talk about what is the cost? What's the benefit of different solutions, somebody taken as the starting point. Last really smart people have been looking at this. There is a problem, not the end of the world. How do we say, right. Well and the reason I do bring that up.

and again I appreciate your rational approaches, because if you look at these same reports right there's a consistent seem if you look at the people coming from places like the? U n and But some of them you do address obviously will talk about sort of what their focuses as far as green energy renewables. But the can distant focus seems to be okay. This entirely, I guess, isn't shape tectonic shift in all the ways that we consume energy and depopulation right. That was there at the u n climate summit, where I watch ted turner proposed china's one child policy to thunderous applause, and it surprised me as a young twenty something you're old. So I think that, yeah. I know we want to reach across the aisles, but we do need remember their people in that's how they are going wait. A second fits old standard, but it's also married with these policies that are viewed as pretty anti freedom. That is important balance for it, not just the the economic measures but

with the freedom that people value vs control, because I think that's at stake in a lot of these proposed policies, and I think a little bit is also because the un is very bad at sort of keeping the different conversations apart. The un climate panel is actually trying to do real, good scientific work. Then there is sort of an overlaid on who

to summarize us for policymakers, which is obviously something governments does the they certainly sharpened. They often slightly admit manipulates some of the conclusions and then, of course, they get much sensationalize when they get into the media. And then you have all the people like tat turn and everybody else who shows up these negotiations, which actually hosted by different organizations. Unicef triple c- and they are very very much for saying- we need to come home, go all the way on renewables and we need to de population and de growth and all kinds of other things. These are things that people throw up. They dont all mean all of it, but you sentimentally there's a lot of things in there that are both very ineffective, very unlikely to happen and not the way that you're gonna get most people on board to. Actually tax, anything like climate right, you get too. I think, obviously, if people let's say start off with with different points: ok, let's all goethe,

climate change is happening. Humans are a, I should say, a cause of it. If we want to show you the solar primary cause it brings us to the idea of it. Having cataclysmic results. And your lecture, and I watched watch all that purdue. I think it was paid it was within the last six months something stood out of me. You, said that we don't have good strong data for Climate change, increasing climate related deaths, could you, I guess, sort of fill me and what that means and in what data there would be the most convincing compelling or people should focus on if its incomplete so, first of all, if you look at how puppy they die from climate related disasters that be storms. Why fires, droughts and floods those are the sort of the best ones that we have good evidence for, at least for the last century. So it's not

such, I think, most people, if you just ask him, they were fully assume. Oh, it's growing up in outline. Certainly that's what I'm saying on cnn and all kinds of news reports all the time. Actually, it's gone down dramatically. Ah, so it used to be that these passing some sorts drums, droughts and wildfire, killed about half a million people each year on the planet? the last decade, it is down to below twenty thousand people, so we ve seen a reduction of what ninety seven percent or thereabouts and remember this- is at the same time as the world has quadrupled in size, so we ve simply been become much much safer. This isn't, anything to do with climate. That has to do with the fact that if your rent sure you're more resilient, if your poor, your We want a report if you're, not poor, you're much less vulnerable. So this is basically a fact of us. Getting Sandro boy, and that's it

was crucial, because that's really what's gonna fix a lot of the problems that will get from global warming, not actually sex, global warming first, but making sure people no longer vondra The second was the second indicator that you could look at his heat and coal dust, so a lot of disparate have to say, as temperatures rise, you're going to see more heat waves. That absolutely true But the question is how many is that going to make is acting make it more dangerous. While there's two things to. First of all, You need to recognise that all measures is a very large international. Well restock result, from crossed the literature. But perhaps the best one is from two thousand twenty one lancet, not a journal. They estimate that globally locally about half a million people die from heat every year, except from too hot temperatures at about four point, five million people die from

the temperatures so nine times as many we're not talking about a world where most people die from heat know. Most people die from cold cold is fantastically more dangerous for a lot of different reasons. And again, if you look at what's happened with the change in temperature, it's not such that as temperatures go up, you just see, more people die from he, although you probably do that, you also see fewer people dying from com, because many more people die from call of the last twenty years. Has temperatures risen we actually seen a decline in the total number of people dying from called me, because more people die from heat, but many fewer people in what each and every year jumpin there, because we did speak about this not too long ago. Some some numbers that we're so unbelievable that I d triple check them. At my own. Shall we make all of the references publicly available to people watching right now you can follow along with sort of the bibliography, and I was raised in montreal. I was the first agreement right with montreal before was before was paris and now I live in texas and

people will now discuss as heat wave in texas, but I lived through the ice storm in Montreal, where I did have actual people I knew die, and this brings me to the point that, yes, there are vastly more deaths from cold than heat and power. for that reason, right is where more technology equally equipped in many ways to deal with. What we would see is certainly the extreme heat these heatwaves than, for example, I store which occur with great regularity step that shocked me was. If you look at the virginity tests in the united states about seven hundred up to now in europe about fish. in two thousand. This was according to the cdc and w h show, but the u s: ninety percent of americans and air conditioning, and only ten percent in europe, and if you look at the bring policies they obviously proposing reducing or outright eliminating air conditioning, which could lead to countless more deaths with heat, and that's that my ultimate concern as these policies being anti people.

see we're gonna get. You have to be very careful when you talk about people died from heat, that's typically just very, very extreme end of the scale of what you I storms is also the extreme other in most people actually die of. Just An uncomfortable extra heat or uncomfortable extra coal, because what happens is when you have? He gets harder to be vigorously exercise. It gets hard you do a lot of things and especially older people will have more of risk to die. If you are more cool, you will have higher blood pressure. That leads to a cardiac arrest and many other problems, so this is sort of secondary effects, but you're absolutely right. Many more people die from not being able to keep cold. When it's hot keep warm when it's called. How do you do that with electricity

do that with access to cheap energy, and so when we make energy more expensive, we actually people die more there's a great story in a couple of years ago. That showed what happened when the? U s did fraction, cracking had a lot of different impacts. One was that gas which hits about seventy percent of all americans. Homes became much cheaper. That means especially poor people could keep their homes better heeded in the winter. what does the impact that, while the researchers estimated at that Itself meant that each year, Eleven thousand fewer americans die every year and, of course, Conversely, if you now make energy more expensive again, what happened I have one thousand more people will die each and every year this is not costless and again it's not just because people like to sort of suggest. Oh it's just because you love money that you're so concerned about the fact that the terror that cost will go up with climate policies. Well,

Money is just a short hand. All the things that people can do? Yes, it means you can go more invocation, but also means you can actually keep your house a heated, so and die in winter. Also by the way. That's the crux: that's a very rich white guy thing to say that you just care about money. Go tell that to some kid living in rural india, who can't who can actually keep himself cool to any degree or in some cases, make sure that his food is safe to eat because he doesn't have the ability to cook it. It's such a privileged point of view and then try and throw it out and and again people in the same boat. Maybe it's true. If you're from canada, our I'm from me, though, from from denmark, may maybe they just cold is a really big things, but actually even in india. One of the house. This places on planet We asked the man cool das, so deaths are below the optimal temperature, are much much worse. So the estimates again is that about thousand people in india will die from heat, but more than

hundred thousand people will die from coal answer. again, these kids need to be ensured that they don't die, especially when it's much colder, sometimes just a couple of months through the year when it's much colder. Why are we talking about that and why are we so focused on making sure that energy becomes more expensive, especially for the poor? Now I think it's very important point, and if you take it all into account, let's even reduce it right from air conditioning or centralized there hey if it gets that call How many of them have parkers? What's wrong to create a parka. What do you think you know the zippers are made of what what likely some and a petroleum product unless you're, you know unless you're like Andrew tate and it's probably made of solid gold. But the point remains. Let me ask you: let me ask you this, because you made some really good points on this and I can't remember the data reference that you used. Was it something I e a c? I know this was in relation to separating sometimes just carbon dioxide or carbon emissions first pollution, because this

something that has attracted a lot of people, so many people is to die for global burden of disease. Yes, that's where certain of disease- yes, they they look at. What do? People die from and all kinds of different ways, and you just kind of to be shake your head in disbelief when people say, climate change is the most important issue in in global health or even for american health know it's not by firing. A lot of people know that's by far. The most important thing is that you die from of of cardiovascular disease and cancer we'll you guys in coal rather in the part of the world, we often forget that environs. The issues are big, but it's not what you think. It's not climate change its air pollution in rich countries, its outdoor air pollution, that's dangerous, but in most of the poor world,

one of the most important issues as indoor air pollution is the fact that most people in the developing world can keep warm with dirt. If you will like don carport would whatever they can lay their hands on and and and that's why the world health organization actually estimate the average endure. Pollution. The average indoor air it most third world hans. Is ten times more polluted, then the war? to air pollution in beijing or new delhi. So We have no sense of those in the world in developing countries is the limit like smoking, two packs of cigarettes each day. Surprisingly, that's not healthy, for you know what I did that about thirteen years of my life growing up in a french canadian apartment, a three bedroom apartment, every new year's party that was probably a case of cigarette packs. Everyone smoked, but yes, okay, so- and I think it's important because I think he gave people on board with the idea of we need to pollute less right verses. We

to eliminate the use of fossil fuels or carbon emissions are two very different things and a lot of, a successful proposal that have taken place have more so proposal. Pollution, and sometimes it also by the way, brings us to environmental impact of solar and wind. The environmental impact can be worse or larger, even if so called carbon emissions are less they're, not always one and the same? They affect people differently, but let's go with this premise: ok, these people, because you have actually twelve kind of steps You think, would be productive Let me ask you this: let's say: do we also believe that the government right before we get your proposals, and this is where you can color me, skeptical more specifically, this international sort of coalition, that entirely relies on the united states government to be clear That's why americans are apprehensive. Do you believe that government, its for all, governments could actually change the course of the earth's climate in any way, and if not, what are the What other proposals that could actually have an impact?

not in the way that they're caring about it. Because, fundamentally and as you point out trying to make agreements, and they did that in cancun and all the other climate meetings, where they're basically trying to tell everyone. We know that you like your fossil fuels, because it basically supports jobs and the economy and gives you heat in the winter and cool in the summer, and all these other great things that you like. But could you stop using? That? Would that be okay for you and not surprisingly, nobody actually wants to say that. But everybody goes there. They sort of say sure I'll do that in ten or fifteen years, or something when somebody elses in power and then nobody does it. That's not. Surprisingly, not a terribly good way to do it. Now. You I have some people and is increasingly so in much of the rich world that are actually going to try to do something along those lines. So your biden in the? U s and much of europe justin trudeau in canada, many other places where they actually saying look we're going a lot of money to try to,

at least rim a little bit of those engine of growth up from our economy. Again, this is gonna, be shelly, costly, it's not in convert martian. We ve seen how hard it is to actually do this. And of course, once the price starts, increasing most people say scrutiny. I'm gonna vote. That guy out, for I saw this is unsustainable and unrealistic way, mostly to try to fix the problem which why it's failing and which is why I'm trying to say there is much much smarter way to do this fundamentally. Look at what did you asked it again? Back with frank packing was basically this idea that we can get to lot of gas in the? U s that we couldn't before with a new technology. So the? U S, darpa, basically, an end and sort darpa, and the department of energy spent a lot of money, funding guys who thought we can do this, but it's not commercially viable right now they spent probably about ten billion dollars in total

to be a fantastic deal for the. U s right may issue, because it made much cheaper energy available. You probably got rich to the tune of about two hundred and eighty billion dollars every year. At least for a decade or so. This has been a great idea. There are also costs for the the total environmental cost is probably in the order of twenty twenty five billion dollars. So it's not nothing but much much smaller than the benefit, and here's the kicker it turns out that gas immense much less co2 than coal and when make gas cheaper. A lot of people stop using coal and start using gas instead and so the? U S has actually cut its carbon emissions much more than any other nation over the last decade, decade and a half so both through obama, trump and Biden, not primarily because you were green, but because this innovation made it cheaper to which to frat gas right there. Tell shoe the very simple point: if you can make

We know technology cheaper than fossil fuels, peoples which that's what we need until the government steps in and says. No, that's a big problem right with american policy. Do you have an administration or by administration who paused a lot of fracking leases or any new developments, and that that kind of brings us too. Obviously, he's doing this in line with the? U n, in line with a lot of these guidelines, because gas, bat right and I think important just brought up hold on a second needed to a risk of a cost benefit analysis, it's better than other forms of energy. Doesn't matter, Let us live said. Gas, bad and now racking is, is not nearly as not growing nearly as quickly and may come to a point of proposals make it through where it may not be allowed at all. We have to phase it out. So that brings in k for talking about governments these proposals in your proposals by the way are so reasonable compared to the the s fiji like this thing is a wish list for children like end poverty greatest, So I appreciate yours, but who are the adults in the room right? If we have,

for example, Donald trump on this paris. This paris agreement isn't going to do what we needed to do and by saying no we're going to sign on, and also I'm going to end fracking, because I know for someone from denmark. It would be very hard to give any to someone like a trump as it relates to fractions. Maybe the policy of ending franking isn't quite reasonable, but that's what we're doing? Yes. Look. So so, fundamentally, I think it's going to be hard to really stop the franking revolution because, as actually powered so much of the- u s, the economy and also, if you stop frighten you're, actually gonna go back and amid a lot more here tonight. What we do need is to at china and india to frack, so that they can also cut their carbon emissions and become rich at the same time. So there is a huge opportunity there, but my point here is to say we: to make sure that policy makers support a lot more of that kind innovation Silly, cheap innovation that drives much much better technology,

everyone will want to buy actually it turns out that I think most politicians would also like to do that. But it's just not this. This is not the conversation that we have on the sidelines of the paris agreement, we actually had most leaders most of the leaders that you normally here about with climate together, with bill gates and a lot of the other rich billionaires coming together in saying we should spend a lot more on innovation in this work. innovation is what makes us rich and solve most problems and look unlike the climate agreements that are literally gonna cost trillions of dollars each year. This costs in the tens of billions of dollars so like a hundred times cheaper by this, it's the kind of stuff we need to do, I'm a I'm afraid. I can't really sort of point out. There are certainly no leaders, I'm not sure we tried also to get her you'll, get to trump to say

innovations short, he wouldn't even be launched to say no to stuff, I'm not so sure that he was all that great, but saying yes to something else, certainly at a later stage, and certainly the related to energy compared to buy right. To find me a single and Democrat who is going to say. Yes, we need to allow india to frack I'll eat my certainly not that's, not gonna happen now, not only to find that now eat it, but not yet, but we but we need, but we need more politicians who are actually going to say I'm just no to a lot of stuff which will never work in the long run. We need to politicians also innovations way for what I think This is the one area with. I agree with your direction The trust and governments of, for example, is innovation, often does come from the private rather than spending any money. You know not. taking money from the people innovating any. For example, horses aren't extinct. People moved on to the model t because Henry ford gave it to us right, and people wanted to have a ford

Now people can still use salt to preserve food if they want to smoke meat and such, but they prefer refrigeration, they weren't outlawed they weren't banned. He didn't need to today's at? What about an approach of assent? considering how charitable american businesses are just not take. So much of their money. Otherwise, for trusting these governments to spend these billions where we wanted to go, even if the solution is a correct I hear you point, I think there are certainly some value to. Let me go. Let me just give you a sort of economists argument for why that might be. An argument for, for governments to be spending does remember again. Fracturing was made possible because government was willing to pony up a little bit of money. try this out in twenty years, to get it right. And then tracking just ran on its own. If the iphone and there's been many of these other examples, a lot of things of went into the world wide web work

stunned by governments. So there is an argument to sort of spend a little bit of seed money and, if you'd, if you look at, for instance, a lot of other research, into diseases. I've? Governments spend a lot of money on if you will lose sky research. The kind of stuff that delay there's no bells, but then eventually we hope to die goes into stuff, they become a medication that you can get a private company to make ends itself and get everyone to buy. So the point is theirs. good argument to make the research That is a long term and that's hard for individuals to recoup their estimates from the main problem is: if you spend money, you come up with a great idea The idea will only breakthrough in twenty or thirty years you patent run out. and that's why we need to make sure that we have these universities, researchers and eggheads delivering all those things that will eventually make us rich twenty thirty forty years. I would not.

I'd rochelle, but I would disagree with the premise. Just take the using those examples: ok, and this is something of what kind of study this for. Why make me in but desert the the cancun climate summit and I've been covering this for a long time. It's John John, when I'm I I met you talk breaking the free. wasn't made possible because government funded at franking was made possible. Shirt coincided with the government not in punitive lee prohibitive The internet is another example, you mentioned, it is basically uses glorified intercom right to sort of militarily. Only once was opened up to private innovators that become the internet that we knew today, drug research, You talk about get well, there's no country in the history of the world is provided new medical innovation outside the states and the as majority that has come from the private sector, that's why, when Canada went public, their medical research actually just plummeted to an unparalleled degree, so I think sometimes there's the the chicken or the egg. People think it's because of government not hold on a second. There were points in time, we're

a government reigns in the shackles were removed in the private sector was able to innovate. I think I need a little of both but I've. wanna give too much better to government crap you I just want to mention one thing: mitchell, who was probably the single biggest guy and in sort of getting the tracking her a heap is on record for saying very much. It would never have without the support of the daily for a decade or more ways not takes up money. Ben, it sort of suggests that it's hard to. Actually he had a hard time, for instance, convincing his investors keep doing this, and that was why idea he was was necessary. My point here is simply to say that we should spend, much less money, but more smartly in innovation. there's a lot of good examples on on how innovation has been helped along with good in I spent from governments just simply because the time frames too long for private interests

Are you able to recoup the full benefit, and I agree with that, and I think I think, if we're going to be making investments at all, It should be made in areas that have a proven track record. You know, as opposed to green investment couldn't cookery has been a disease. you're right things like cylinder. If you look at the subsidizing of solar and wind, would you discussed quite a bit, let me out I ask you this, because this ties in to your proposals right as far as and I'd like to know what they are specifically but lot more People are terrible here: renewables, renewables and in their head, that's wind and solar right. In nuclear? Isn't even something this necessarily brought into the table? I know you have certain opinions on that. We agree on a lot of it, but when in solar, what percentage of the earth energy right now, this planets energy comes from wind and solar, and if the people who there climate change alarmists? What have their way unfettered. How much would it rise? I think it's startling to most people

right. Now it's less than two percent of all global energy, so people tend to focus just an electricity, but remember the vast amount of that we use is not calling trinity. That's the heating, that's the cooling birthday transportation is industrial processes. Its cement certainly, sir, all these things and so delivering very very little, and most of it is only deliver because we subsidize quite heavily and and what most people seem to be suggesting is. Oh, you go be up near a hundred percent with us. That's just not possible. Because what are you gonna move when the sun is not shining in the wind is not blowing? You actually need an enormous map. A backup went out. I came out a little bit of batteries right right now. The world has batteries enough to keep us howard on when the sun dies down. The sorry son stops in the window is down for about a minute and fifteen seconds

by the end of this decade, we might even be up to eleven minutes nights usually take longer than that yeah there's this note. This is just not realistic in any sort of reasonable timeframe and, of course remember, if you actually want to bio those extra about, or as you also need to buy extra solar panels and wind turbine to fill up you just made energy is three times more expensive because you needed to by the wind turbines. For now the wind turbines for later am the batteries. So the people, hell themselves, who stories always or commercially viable right now. I know it's true. Solar when the sun is shining is, can be very cheap but when the sun is not shining is infinitely costly

and we need to be honest about this, if you're going to have a solution, it'll have to be nuclear, should point out for electricity and nuclear is still pretty expensive, where we possibly make it a lot cheaper with fourth generation nuclear, but otherwise we have to come up with new and great innovations that if we do so let me just give you one example: craig venter, the guy and cracked, the human genome back in two thousand. Yes, a crazy idea, and I think the on sentimentally we're gonna we're gonna, eventually end up with one crazy idea. Just just ended up work in my yes, this idea of having algae out in the ocean: surface soaking up sunlight and co2 and creating oil them harvest amount on the ocean surface and will create oil we'll just basically have our own saudi arabia's are on the side of the ocean and and of course, that we can keep our entire fossil fuel economy because of these, your neutral co2 neutral. I was just spoke about the ocean surface a couple months ago during this, is

in principle doable its way far from cost effective right, but maybe you if something was had to come up with a better way of doing this work about being a fantastic outcome from for all of humanity. So again it's the point of saying we need a thousand slow we crazy guys like that. He has a good track re regarding slightly crazy guys. They will come up with a different idea we fund for a little bit and then maybe one actually gonna pounds of point of our century and will take those wonderful contributions to humanity. Turn it into something stupid as twenty three in me, but I do know that I am zero point. Five percent sub saharan african so yeah yeah yeah. I know the end and that actually brings me to something you know this. This idea right and I've heard about this before and it kind of seem more like fantasy. The idea of this algae that are absorbed scioto can create oil,

its carbon dioxide, the basically neurotoxic atmospheric poison that people make it out to me because you just pointed out. plants thrive on it. Absorbs video to actually, if you look throughout right, not just for tat time in human history, but if you look throughout all of jail that we have It's when there are a lot of booms of foliage and plants right, the higher the c o two in the atmosphere. So why are we so focused on eliminating it? If hey these, that's what they eat this Sue two makes the world greener. That's absolutely uncontroversial incontrovertible! It's one of the main signs actually of climate change as they like to point out, but not really tell you. So we have like three continents more of of leaves on the planet of the last twenty. Five years three: cotton. the? U s, area of leaves on

at around the world. The world has gotten a lot greener, that's great! Everyone knows if you have a if you grow tomatoes in a greenhouse, you pump an extra c o two, because it makes the tomatoes bigger. It's just a great bow. Fertilizer to the point to remember is dead. Just because he was really really greener. Leafy and the jurassic period doesn't necessarily mean that our societies today would well suited for that, and certainly the the argument really from an economist's point of view is again. You know a both a boston and miami are great at where they are, but if it got a lot warmer or a lot colder, they would

I'll be miss adapter and it would cost a lot of extra money to adapt them to whatever that temperature is so that the point here is mainly. We don't want to get to swerve too far away from what it used to be when we put down all our infrastructure. Thus, that's the main reason, no editors and to go back to your point about extremes right like ice drones and heatwaves, I'm talking about more more so moderate. For example, the cat traffic sort projections are about. Two point is a two point: four degrees celsius. Increase over a period of over around two two to two point: five right: okay. I know there are different numbers so for talking about that. Does that happen? kind of catastrophic results, and is there again some? What do we have to take into account, for example, that rewards portion of that cohesion is part of plants. We need the great barrier reef right man ever regime, rare that we hear that it's actually. There are areas that more coral, but in the last thirty years, yes,

we should absolutely remember. There are both benefits and dis benefits from climate change, and there are more dis, benefits and benefits. That's why it's a problem, but not talking about the benefits at all is also a very, very dangerous way of trying to think about it. So this is what climate economists have done for a very long time, so there are literally thousands of climate economists around the world. Only one of them has ever gotten. The nobel prize in climate economics is called william nordhaus from yale university in two thousand and eighteen, his estimate a lot of other climate economists. Those Did you nothing about climate by the end of the century, gonna feel like we last year percent less well off than we are. Actually be remembered by then will be much much better off, so what you have to remember is, I think, if I'm not mistaken, to jump in will be. I've heard low estimates that three hundred and something per cent wealthier and as high as four hundred and fifty percent wealthier. In that same time frame I have that about right, yeah so

Did you ever asked me will be four hundred and fifty percent as rich by the end of the century as we are today? This is a sort of the standards in error will be much much better, just like we are much better off today than we were in nineteen. Twenty three great rights of the point here is it'll, be a much much better world, but because global warming it'll feel like we're not four and fifty percent of rich, but only four hundred and thirty four four percent is rich.

I started problems now and said to me: that's not a problem! If just that again now I'd say I'd take the floor. I'd take a four hundred and thirty four percent pay raise tomorrow. Only I pay myself. Oh that's very generous of you. I'm sorry, I'm not in the power to actually give you that snow, but I think I'll give it to you and I think it's vitally important to build know, because we were just talking about money. This is just a metric that use right, we're not actually talking about dollars, it's estimating the reward and the risks for people's health and the welfare that people will experience by the end of the century. So there aren't going to be downsides, but there wasn't going to be lots of upsides. Most of them are going to come from technology and the fact that when people are richer, they are it's vulnerable right? So again we need to get it right. So what most effective. So assuming and I don't but assume that these international governments aren't corrupt, which I do. I thought it was funny when you pulled people right as far as biggest problems across the globe. Corruption was up there in that

three or five, if you look at the s s, fiji goals to accomplish eliminating corruption is nowhere in there. But let's assume that there isn't corruption at the money goes where we're supposed to. What are the most effective solutions or what are we start? Thank you. March, because I have written a book about that. Yes, exactly that makes them extra name of the book in front of me again. It is the best things. First, the twelve most efficient solution so and I do recommend people go and read it. Yes, so I basically tried to say we promised all these great things. Fixing climate change is one of them. We ve also promised to fix correctional dimension, mentioned fix education, fix health fix hunger, thinks about poverty, fix everything else in and get organic apples and community gardens to everyone, though the whole shebang. The world is literally promised us. The the let's go home. Everybody else failing badly and so we're saying look. Maybe the rain approaches

to promise everything to everyone all the time. That's just silly. Let's find the smartest things that could actually do a huge amount of good for fairly little money, and so I'm just going to give you two of the examples. But yeah we go through twelve different, great ideas, so one is to focus on maternal and newborn health. One thing To my mind, there is the fact that every year about three thousand moms guy in childbirth and too point three million kids die in there. Months on this planet, mostly in poor countries, and is not rocket science. Why they do it's because they go they giving birth. pretty dangerous and you fix it by going to institutional Burton institutional setting and make sure that you have sort of those same procedures not enormously effective, are not enormously complex ones, but just really cheap. What is so get moms and give lycosa halls like an alcohol swabs by the way, and that sounds reductive too rich one

people in the united states. They don't have the ability to disinfect anything in many countries when the woman gives birth- and I do mean that are doing to be productive, like disinfectant, it's very, very simple stuff. One one thinks seven hundred thousand kids die each year because they don't ever start breathing. And we know how did this happens and rich world about five percent of all kids that are given birth- they dont breeze from start. So you need to put mask over them and apply positive air pressure to get the air in the lungs and the kids and then so wise we do the past sixty five dollars for it for hand pump. Probably save about twenty five lies. Yet this is just one of those. Many many examples of what we find is if we spend collectively as a world about five billion- or so this is not nothing. Exclaimed things not very much if you spend five billion dollars a year. We

save one. One million people point, two million kids and one hundred and sixty six thousand moms and again you mentioned that this a set for everybody's uncorrupted self. None are we actually included that there will be some of the girls to corruption? There will be a lot of that goes to incompetence, but if you do a reasonably well, that is, if you doing stupid way, but you try to do as good as we normally can do with extra money. You can actually Jesus for five billion, as if we were, if we were totally optimist, you could probably do for three, but we're being realistic, so five billion all she could do this, the other one, It is on education I apologise that one, because I would like to offer the now that they might. I completely agree with what you just said: who cares what say: ted turner, if it did indeed rather decrease the surplus population right. If they If die, they better. Do it decreases it. It is it's that the pre redemption ebenezer scrooge a lot of their policy proposals in all these agreements involve

population right, but the population, growth and growth problem. So you're talking about saving lives. I agree that's far more important than you know, eliminating ape three degree rise, which is probably the best rate of return, if we did everything they wanted it that that period in time, but that's not approach. if you look at these international solutions, if it doesn't equate to stopping the rise, Temperature I think you're, probably painting was slightly too broadcom mob mob brush a lot of people, also in the? U n, actually want to save human lives. But yes, there are certainly some people out there who will say: oh, but it's not worth it or this is not our primary position and I think you're absolutely right on the money. If you think global, Why is the end of the world?

thing else matters. If this is a meteor hurtling towards earth, we should throw drop everything else. We have and just need to get hold of bruce willis and the guys and get them up and fix this right, but but but the truth is it's not four percent muslim? That's why it's so important to get people to recognize. Global warming is not the end of the world. It's a problem, just like all the others. Unfortunately, it's one of those problems we, unless we don't really smart meters, we talked about with research involvement. We spending lots of money. Time almost do nothing to solve, so why don't actually try to solve the things that we can solve? First, that would obviously matter a lot more to most people in this plan for- and I and I I agree, you a little, but I think, the u n or a lot of these international climate panels, because let us be clear: a lot of them exist and they just kind of all sorts of ago can not get back to each other. They to save lives,

In relation to global warming, the idea of saving lives for saving life sake. Does it actually does not take the same kind of presidents as although warming- and we see this with- with grants issued in united states, for example, if I want to study the the gathering patterns of the data, no north atlantic squirreled, nothing I studied in relation to global warming. Here's a six million dollar man, yes, and so your solution there for someone. Just wants to save lives. Absolutely I dont know money, deaf ears in which it fall if it doesn't die into reducing temperature and in an that's the issue that really equally. For me, as it is, is a moral question. As to the soul of what our what our country wants to do, I want to save those lives. So, but let's go, let's go to the issue of misleading stephen. Just very very briefly, I hear what you say and I think there's some of them were. That's actually right. I think you'd, be you be

We need to know that there is actually a lot of people, also in even in the u n system, who would also want to just new care human lives and actually care about tuberculosis, malaria and all these other terrible diseases, and also want to do this, and so I think, it, perhaps even sort of forgetting that there's people that we could get on board to say maybe we should spend money more smartly, more conservatively in the climate space so that we have some more money to actually do real good in many parts of the world will create a good example. Malaria, you mean things like ddt as opposed to nets, yet well we're actually suggesting insects I treated nets. One of the reasons is ddt We have had our actions now one thing back, then we said get rid of what killed him and not, as is his route. It turns out that it's really hard unless you're well organised, it's really hard to spray large areas. Without

bring it up and that's one of the corruption things and incompetence things, whereas insecticide treated nets turned out to be really cheap way. Remember we fix malaria pretty much everyone else, except for africa. For two reasons, africa has the deadliest. various malaria parasites and then also has speedo, the only by its Where is the mosquito the year? I have thanks a lot. Lots of other animals, and that means it's much easier to eradicate malaria, because it'll typically not transmit between a lot of people, but in half can that turns out to be a little heart? That's why they start with this problem. Its power. What are you really the problem and we know how to do it safely easily. So again, we estimate you know for about a billion dollars. We could save about two hundred thousand people each and every year Are we doing so

those are the simple points that we simply make to say for little money, you can do an amazing amount. Let me just tell you one: one more thing is give women had so with education. Obviously, everybody agrees is incredibly important. There's a lot of ways to spend money on education and deliver very little debt, so indonesia, for instance, in the early two thousands they decided they were going to spend a lot more money on education, which is a nice thing. They ended up buying a lot more teachers and a doubling the wage and teachers. So they actually I'm one of the lowest class ratios in the world, we did it in such a way that you can actually study scientifically and there's very famous article out there. That's call double for nothing, basically shows that the doubled the teachers pay and there was a absolutely no impact on learning

the teachers were happy, and not surprisingly, but nice, but presumably not the main thing. We want out of an educational system right. So the point here is it's very easy to build more schools feel more like. Oh, we want to give teachers more pay and then say this is the good that we do is both very costly and it often delivers very little or possibly even nothing. There is a really really smart way to do something and that's one that we're advocating, namely if you look a standard class everywhere in the world, all Twelve year olds are in the same grade all the thirteen year olds in the same grade, but especially in poor countries. If you have these, you know fifty twelve year old, kids in in one grades at vastly different. Some of these kids are way ahead of the teacher, and many of them have no clue. What's going on. What is the teacher going to do in principle or best? The teacher said, to teach each one of those kids at his or her own level, the junior. He can't do that. What you can

and we tested this around the world you can this kid one hour day in front of a tablet with educational software, that software will very quickly find out exactly where the student knows and then teach him or her at that exact level means that if you do that, so you have the seven boring hours of school that doesnt quite work, and then you have one hour where you sit in front of the tablet is important, because then you can share the table with lots and lots of other kids. If you do that, it'll cost. Twenty one dollars per kid per year to do this, but for the it will mean that they will learn three years of schooling for everyone. Here they go to school, has just a fantastic because when they then I go out and become adults and go into the labor force market. They will be much more productive and that means they will be richer. Their entire nation will be richer. So we estimate for about ten billion dollars a year. We can

It made sure that almost everyone in the poor part of the world, so that's almost half a billion kids in primary school, could be better smarter and make more money. That's worth more than six hundred billion dollars each and every year. whose we, when you say we spend this money because I'd say this: we ve done that. We then the exact same thing: the united states devil for nothing just to be clear and by the way you can go back to the early two. Thousands where compared private catholic school may not be catholic. You may not like it. You may not like millions of people to I dont care, they had the largest classroom sizes per teacher and they had the best outcomes in new york city right! This idea that there are more students right, but the issue there is. If we get more teacher, we pay the morn smaller classroom sizes, regardless of performance metrics. that's the right thing to do, and so the united states we ve done that and schools are bloated, very expensive that most metrics are not me better get used to eleven, american tendency of people here against school vouchers, which still means government funded it shuts attached to the student. So

the question is: if the united states, we can't get people on board with school vouchers whose we spending this money and respectfully How do we think indonesia has shut? Yes, yes, we actually my organization were where small think tank we're like ten people. We work with a lot of different peoples is the smartest the smartest, but also a lot of governments around the world, and we try to get them to buy into these ideas because we show them. This is a lot of really smart people has done. A lot of research have shown really worked so, for instance, in malawi, we weren't, but the malawi endeavour as one of the poorest countries in the world and in south east africa. We actually showed them. That is spend money on getting tablets again to make sure that they are well established, that you have the electricity that you have a place to lock them down all that stuff right, someone we're gonna, get stolen someone we're gonna be used in all that stuff, but even if you

taking all this into account, you can actually deliver for every dollar spending the abuse quarters area, but for every dollar spent. You will deliver a hundred and twenty one dollars of social good. If you do this They now decided we're gonna do not just because what we said, but also because of what we said they are now going to make sure that they roll it out to all of the lobbies. Primary school its worrisome, we're making same argument this very likely a very good idea for everyone else in the world, and we as community as a globe. The usa idea had seated here. I'm in sweden are Anita whatever its call, but it's also rich people like bill gates and everybody else, but has also poor country governments like malawi and everywhere else. They should spend just a tiny fraction of their money under that's because as one of the best investment you can do

again, not everybody's, going to do it and you've just made the case, and in the u s, then it's sometimes hard to get people to do the smart stuff. But you know if you lay out a buffet of twelve amazing ideas like YO as we talk about maternal and newborn health with malaria. The education we look at tuberculosis and land tenure and all these other things, if you do that before you. Some governments will actually take up some of these ideas and we use estimate they'll. Do it so so not amazingly but also because it some of the best thing we can do in the world in actually do amazing that for the world for every dollar spent right. Why certainly go at the promised by the way that, as opposed to, for example, trying to move us to wind and solar to focus if you're going to spend the money on education on basic things like basic healthcare necessities, I would agree with all that you just can kirk

so the united states, I mean how much we we have far more in overall national spending on education in the military to common myths. A lot of people don't know that a lot of it comes from states because of the way our system works and we've. improved zero, so that's where I go if we can improve at all on standardized testing scores? As a matter of fact, certain communities have gotten worse in the last fifteen. literacy rates and graduation rates it just I am always very apprehensive as far as government being kept, we're being part of a solution, but that doesn't mean that hey! You know it's the lesser of two evils: if they're going to be spending that money- I think now she's got up. and stephen again? My point is if we are trying to convince there's about two hundred governments in the world, At the are you in some sense you could say there are fifty in the? U s maid, if you try to tell them, here, is a great idea,

chances are a lot of them are not going to do it, they're going to say no to vouchers. No, two, there's! No! To that we're not going to have your tablets, we're not going to do all that it's a shame. You're! Hopefully, you'll do some other smart stuff that some of them are going to say yes and that's the whole point. I would love to get everyone in the world to do all the smart stuff. I I'm old enough to know that that's not going to happen. So we have a saying in our own. Those largeness station is not about getting everything right. It's about getting. It slightly less wrong right. If we can just get there be immensely happy now I am- and I do appreciate that night. I hope that we can. I actually want to do a quota of yours, because this kind of brings us back to that idea about a quick question. Why twelve? You isn't it! I know your friends are actually doctrine pearson friend of mine, everyone's two and twelve twelve. Those for life as it did, I miss It- was a memo I didn't. A dozen, so we,

actually set the target had it had to be so we do benefit cost analysis. So we simply said it had to be a big thing, sort of have to be a big investment and had to deliver at least fifteen dollars back in the dollar and our overall outcome in the whole book. So the whole book goes through all of these twelve investments. It shows that you can spend about thirty five billion dollars delivered sore point: two million lives, so you'll saved four point: two million lives each and every year and you'll deliver one point: one trillion dollars and benefits. That's a fantastic You said we're going to look for all the things that are above fifteen and it turn out that there were twelve or it could have been thirteen. It could have been eleven. It could have been. I dunno we've done this before and we were sort of expecting of the sixteen twelve just turns out to be a nice number, but it was not what we'd picked up. I thought, maybe you guys, and it was it was it was the work of we don't want to hear. Where is the corrupt, invisible hand of big twelve at work

They worked coincide, assess mystery. You did write this and I think it s bt before P s g and iii. Ass rates asked these stds for people who are aware of them, and you wrote this. This quote you said ambassadors quietly explained to me that their job wasn't really to find the best policy investments for the world. They were there to highlight their governments, particular policy focus, which was often ideas. It played well at home regardless of how efficient or not we're at solving global problem, so it? If that's that's true. What actual use are these ambassadors and their s? De and explain to people who sometimes or to close the forest, see the trees. What the, stage ii are these things, I guess so: back in two thousand and fifteen, the countries in the world got together and said we want to set nice sounding things for the world near promises that we're going to do for twenty thirty and that's works.

These sustainable development goals are. They were eventually put into place and I don't think anyone really organised that that's why, but it ended up being about eighty, you and masters in new york. That did us and in the union to believe that they had put an enormous amount of effort into really making sure that these were the fairy best things to promise for the world? But the reality, as she also just quoted, was near the norwegian master came with four things that Norway really want it and the pursuing about her came in five things that Brazil really wanna and they just ended up sort of merging all of it and putting in together in an end to this gigantic package. If we're gonna promise everything taffir. What it made everyone feel very good about themselves and- and it had that kumbaya moment, problem courses promising everything to everyone. We ensure no priorities whatsoever.

and that's. Why were basically spending lots of resources and achieving almost nothing? So what I'm trying to say is look is beautiful, that the world actually wants to do something good for the world but maybe instead of just promising stuff. Maybe we should start thinking about what should we be doing? And here at twelve amazing things we do be doing their very cheap. deliver amazing benefits Maybe we should do those things first, I know I completely agree with you, but you get used to this. Were eighty ambassadors in new york, us, ok, so eighty ambassadors and let said they each average, for so when you said you'd like to think it was very organised, now see I understand and environment. I like you very diplomatic, but if these numbers- and this actually happen The word useless mean anything to you: that's what I used to for me really: that's that's when I go to team out look limbed just explain, explain this very quickly,

I came to think so. The union has made lots and lots of promises to honestly the world's have made a lot of blood and promises framework. If you remember the league of nations back and nineteen twenties, they were organised to avoid war again right after what we're one and of course worked like a charm, concluded by won't want to so we'd made all these promises milsom never work, but back in two thousand kofi annan, who is then sector drowsy, one and five other guys, and they want whole guys in the back room in the. U s made what was known as the the millennium development goals. it was a very short sharp. Sort of lists of promises, half the number of people in poverty, half the number of people in hungary, the get kids in school, clean drinking water and sanitation. Stop mom from dying, stop kids for nine thousand.

Actually kind of worked. It didn't work all the way and all that stuff actually really did a lot of good. So in ninety ninety about six percent, twelve million kids die of each and every year below the age of five, twelve million kids some today That number is down, and twenty fifteen it was down to just six million. Of course that's the way too many, but whose much much fear and alive which part of this to two or three million kids are safe because of these millennium development goals. So they were really good. So we can do something good if we really prioritize and focus ourselves, but what of course, if everybody felt really bad about was this was

there's something wrong about six guys in the back room: the, u n, deciding what the world should do the next fifteen years, or so they said we shouldn't do that. We should ask everyone and that's where the ambassadors and everybody else came in for so I think it was sort of- and it was natural, understandable mistake, but it was a mistake because no you can to have that way. You actually have to I dunno to allow analysis in seattle and haven't I went. I was wrong leadership b. I can't you can always be run by a vote in people just one about what they want and then you end up with a wish list. But exactly let me ask you this as someone who obviously is very an end by the way, I hope is as convincing this what it comes down to by sound negative. I hope you convincing to these eighty ambassadors right in these, the, as you are to the person watching right now and sometimes having spent time with loudly folks and garment. I understand the tap that their ambitions are different, but let's say that of you were right. Now: has a friend or a spouse family member who

ass, we experience in the united states. I don't know what it's like in denmark, but you're vilified right. They will disagree. what's em, but also vilify them on the idea. These these in imminent traffic dangers of fossil fuel use and that we have to move to renewable or this. You know the the parasites get picked. Could kyoto protocol paris accord? why you don't care about the environment? What would you say the most compelling evidence or case that someone right now could could make offer that person, to help them at least see the point of view of someone like yourself for myself The short answer is to ask them to think what would most p what tat side of the room, twirled, say so. Clearly this one one and a half billion people who well off you or I am probably most viewers here- are- are so comfortable the region worry about the temperature in a hundred years and look

There is good reason to say we're smarts advanced civilization. We can walk into a gun. At the same time, we can also be concerned about that, but there's something wrong about being so concerned about this, that we forget that right now this year too, point three million women and kids are going to die in childbirth. One point: four million people are going to die from tuberculosis, the six hundred thousand are going to die from malaria and so on and on and on fundamentally there's a huge amount of misery and hush depressing stuff in the world. That's happening, right now people who don't have enough food who don't have enough opportunities who are left in poverty and hence of course, also much more vulnerable to all these things that you also worry about. Not just hurricanes may be caused by global warming in future, but also all the hurricanes that are here right now. So the fundamental point is to say to these people if you have one of those six

point five: seven billion people in the world, the vast majority of the world. What do you think you would want us to focus on it's climate change they also want us to focus a little bit and that, but they want to save their kids from easily curable sexes. Diseases get them out of poverty, get them better. Education make sure they're not starving. These are very basic things: and the amazing thing is we solve many of these problems at very low cost. So what is it? you want to do something. That'll do a little good in a hundred years for your trillions of dollars. Or do you want to do a lot of good right now for billions of dollars and that will also make the world a lot better place, because if you are richer, better educated, you don't die right now and also means will be much more resilient, much better off in twenty one. I think

It's a very convincing case. It's a it's one that I've seen made for awhile, but I don't think as effectively with that data driven. You know the the access to some of the data now and you've had with your think tank to compile it to the book as best things. First before my final quest, it- is the twelve most efficient solutions. This is long? I know it's not the title, but it's it's. I gotta solutions for the world's poorest and our global std promises that is but I want to sure I get it right every time, so you have to read that I have to go to my pet for that. Let me ask you this I'm sure a lot of people, especially in the united states, will be curious on this. as it relates to sort Your policy proposals right or interventions, whether we want to call them ideas, would they be m, impacted Let's say second Biden term: considering you know he rp signed back on to the paris accord

and then I would ask what what it would look like with, for example, since we ve had both of em a second donald trump term. again my senses that when you said Take up the political divide, the very obviously is there on the climate discussion. I think a very clearly Biden administration. We think a lot less of my advice on climate, then perhaps the trump. Why would they, though yours scientists- and I mean that? Why would they think less of it? Why this widely denies it still qualify? because at the end of the day, a lot of this- and this is not just from violence, as is also from trumpery you're looking for don't you want to hear something I think that that is a matter of fact. From book of the world actually think both administrations would like to-

be the ones who made sure that you got better education, that you got moms to stop dying in childbirth, that you got better nutrition, that you got all these other very, very obvious things, and so I think there is a real beauty to the book and message: it's not just that this is fantastically effective way to spend money. This also something the Democrats and republicans can kind of get together on sport. a little money. Probably effective wing to do good in the world. Plus, people actually like that idea and end. So, yes, there is going to be some friction from both sides. Probably, but I think this is something you could bring people together on that's nia in this hyper partisan world is actually something to be slight myself right. I actually on the way to skype. Third, but but be somewhat optimistic because all gum all, unfortunately, all american presents loved to spend our money, but if,

I want to spend it. Spend on things that are appropriate here's what I would would suggest spend a little rather than a lottery, and that's what I was going to say. Yes with, let's say it's: it's president Biden: if you get in a room with him right, the pitch needs to be this would do a lot more good right as relates to overall kind of climate impact and human suffering. That would be important, and you could add to that. If you're dealing with a president to let's say trump or it could be to see if it's republican is actually weak, spend less to be more effective. These differences, He's different sort of measures might resonate more effectively with either one, and I made spending of the amount of time with certain peoples. I'm telling you what I hopefully would like to see pitched, because I do think that a lot of good ideas will be very productive. pressure you. You know it's often a thankless effort, so uptight, for doing it ends?

the people that in Steven are just on the on the last page. That's exactly why I call it the best things. First, it's it's in a sort of way to say. I know that you want to do a lot of other things and you're sort of right wing administration will give more money back to the to the taxpayers and left wing government will will spend more money, but at least do this first the smartest the best things. First, yes, that we could possibly react on what I'm you would think so, but what I'm saying best things first in the internet, Because democrats don't care like bash or another trillion dollars, it doesn't matter. So I'm saying I wouldn't lead with that, whereas I know someone going all right. What's our budget higher, that's something, and I completely agree with you look. I think everything is about a risk reward right and again the dollar metrics we're using for people. I know they're going to be in the comment section: we're not actually just talking about in a dollar return, we're talking about in a soul return in environmental terms, as well as yet in X, return and by the way for people who are watching if you like, the ongoing ratisbon hit like below

I meant show him, you love him. I do understand that look people who work behind these the scenes on these things are the movers and shakers and it often or may not be credited as as much as what today, in the era of the I guess that's changed, but I hope people are listening and I'd love to have you back some time when you write your next book, twelve, more efficient solutions. Oh yes, that's what I have to do in a memo. He didn't get the memo. Gotta stay with twelve beyond

Thank you so much brother. I appreciate it and I'll figure