Panel Discussion: Climate Change

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Introducing Alan Freeth, who's the Chief Executive of the Environmental Protection Authority, Matt Patterson, the Chief Advisor, Policy and Programs, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Janet Whiteside from Auckland Council, a very experienced Principal Specialist in Regulatory Compliance, and last but not least, Oliver Hendrickson, who's the Director at the Ministry for Primary Industries in Forestry and Land Management. Big hand, members of the audience. Nice to see you. Right. Thank you very much for joining us. I guess let's just kick off, not so much in terms of name rank and serial number, but from the different perspectives that you have, where you're coming from on this. What does climate change mean to you in your role? And what's the thing, just in a brief nutshell, that kind of, I suppose, keeps you up at night, if I may say? So Janet, let's start with you. [00:01:02] Janet Whiteside: Well, our immediate concern with Auckland Council is the already existing effects of climate change, in that we've got endless and rapidly increasing complaints, for example, about stormwater. So people whose properties have got overland flow paths that haven't had much water in them before, and now with the increasing bursts of rain, starting to get flooded. And of course it's just a natural occurrence, there's nothing we can do about it, but of course they get really upset about this and can't understand. We've also, you know, having, we feel like the ambulance, not the ambulance at the top, the cliff, well, is it the bottom? It's at the bottom. Yeah, we're at the bottom of the cliff anyway. And that's one of the other problems, is that we've got far more erosion. People, awful lot of people in Auckland have built on the edges of cliffs, which are starting to erode. We've also got the ongoing problem that people are still getting consents to build in floodplains. So that's an issue that we're dealing with on an ongoing basis, and people don't generally understand. So we're a bit desperate that some of that, that approach to where people build, and how all these matters are dealt with changes and changes very rapidly, so that we're not constantly being barraged with things that we can't do about, which is, you know, really quite concerning. [00:02:33] Speaker 1: So you've got ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, avalanche. I mean, I mean, in a different context, they're quite some powerfully macabre puns. Alan, to you, and I read your article in Policy Quarterly the other day, which had just come out with a very, very good article, which talks on a slightly different point of environmental DNA. But I guess as a chief exec, what worries you and what's in, what's in your institutional DNA about that worry? About climate change? [00:03:00] Alan Freeth: Yeah. James Lovelock, who died earlier this year, an Earth scientist, was responsible for the concept of Gaia, which is Earth as a massive, living, interconnected organism. And just before his death, he said that both Gaia and himself were in the twilight of their lives. Something could be done about Gaia, but he recognised his own mortality as well. So for me, climate change represents that the EPA's job and everyone in this room's job has just got real tougher. And we're looking at a fight and something has to change that has to change soon. So for us, we have an ongoing dialogue at sort of macro level of climate change about trying to push boundaries on suggesting that activities that are driven from an old and destructive model of neoliberal politics and capitalism is just riding the nuclear bomb down as in Dr. Strangelove. And I'm sorry to be a bummer, but that's where we're heading at the moment. So we need to do something and nothing changes still something changes. So the work that's happening at Auckland is necessary. But we've got to start to move into a different gear. So for us, we're looking at stepping outside, I guess, our mandate and trying to lobby for more change, particularly around some activities. You may be surprised to know that decision-making committees for the Exclusive Economic Zone are prevented by legislation from looking at climate change effects of oil and gas exploration. It's just bizarre. [00:04:47] Speaker 1: There's a lot there. And it's Dr. Strangelove, by the way, without Peter Sellers, presumably, there's no moment for a smile. But what sort of, what are the tectonics of it, Matt, from where you stand and where you work? What do you see? [00:05:02] Matt Patterson: Well, first, thank you, Ian, for inviting me to be on this panel today. I feel a little like the odd one out here for a couple of reasons. I don't work for a regulator and I haven't done for over seven years when I had a role in stewardship of the emissions trading scheme. The second reason is that I work for parliament. I don't work for the government. It's parliaments that legislate. And while all regulation has to be empowered by legislation, it's generally governments that do the regulation itself, both creating the regulations and then enforcing them and overseeing them. It's maybe splitting hairs, but it is quite an important distinction. But parliament does have another role other than legislating, which is overseeing what executive government does. And I work for the parliamentary commissioner for the environment, and his role is to oversee the environmental management system, both in central government and local government. And it's that oversight role that we take a picture of kind of regulation. So whereas Janet's described her role at Auckland Council as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff, our role is probably up in the air in an electric helicopter, having a look at what's going on around the regulatory landscape. [00:06:21] Speaker 1: But you still feel the convection currents coming above the trees. [00:06:23] Matt Patterson: Definitely still feel the convection of currents coming up. And our role is to think, well, is this actually working? And how might it work better? And advise parliament on that. You asked, what does climate change mean for me and my role? And immediately a whole bunch of words came to mind. What are urgent, critical, overwhelming, diverting, crowded, noisy, complex, multifaceted, interrelated, and challenging? From that kind of word cloud, I want to draw kind of two kind of key points. While climate change is indeed urgent and critical, it is not the only urgent and critical environmental problem that we face. Biodiversity crisis, water quality, are just two of the issues that also come to mind. The real challenge that we all face is that we have to act on all of them at the same time. The other is that while there is broad agreement that climate change is a problem, the solutions to climate change are really contested. And that contested, it creates stress, it creates tension between regulators and users, between everyone. And that's because it's a complex and multifaceted problem. It touches everyone. And it requires a really big toolbox with all sorts of different tools. That's why it's crowded and noisy. And that's why it's hard. [00:07:56] Speaker 1: And I think it's the acknowledgement to that. Thank you, Matt. And we'll come to the difficulties. I think we've come to them already. Oliver, from your particular perspective, and you look after the emissions aspect in a number of areas, and we've spoken offline, the kind of traditional and perhaps less traditional effects of climate change. What do you say to it in the round from where you find yourself? [00:08:22] Speaker 5: Thanks, Ian, and thank you for having me on the panel today. Climate change is much more than watching the weather on six o'clock news and seeing someone's terrible outcome of a river that's overwhelmed the community or a house that we always knew the waves were going to get them. We need to look actually much deeper into kind of what's happening in that space and understanding how this is not environmental issues. These are actually issues that are going to cut across the ability for countries to raise capital, the connection to insurance, and understanding how kind of the invisible threads that kind of help make our world work, are actually under tremendous strain. And if you think often what roles of regulators are, it's we tell people to stop doing things, we try to enable stuff as well, and we provide a system of assurance that allows capital to flow, people to manage risk, and that's really coming into question there. So a good question that I had posed to me once that I started to think about really was, you know, there's a housing crisis on, and you know, looking at the Reserve Bank is pushing interest rates up, right? We've got to fight inflation too, and we're trying to get more homes built. Okay, so many, I'm sure many people in this room have a mortgage and you've gone through that experience with the bank, or you've got a loan or something. There's usually a bit of fine print in there that says, the lender is going to also have a, and it's usually a tick box that you can get insurance, because the lender is concerned that one, you may not be able to pay your bills, and they will look to reclaim the asset to cover their loss. They're also wanting to make sure that there's adequate insurance to protect the asset, regardless of whether you're still in the picture or not. Climate change starts to actually really erode that when the insurers start to question whether they'll give you insurance over 30 years, or if it's going to be questioned on every year, because they're that concerned about the capital that they could be exposed to and risk. [00:10:29] Speaker 1: Absolutely. I mean, and it's not the traditional association of the kind of damaging effects of climate change. I can't get a mortgage because the underlying mortgage asset might not be here, it might be in the sea, God forbid, or somewhere else. You know, you don't see that so much, but it's actually how it zaps the financial markets, the markets that, you know, mum and dad on the street pick up. So why is it, if you think this proposition is correct, and anyone can jump in on this, members of the audience, you can jump in on this too, please. I've got the Q&A open. So just dive in, put in a question, put in a comment, probably easy to do it in digital rather than the analogue way. If you've got any questions, it's also the panel. Why is it that it's, if it is, an elephant in the room for regulators still? Or am I wrong on that? [00:11:13] Janet Whiteside: This is slightly different, but I'm just sitting here listening and thinking about how I feel about it personally. And it's really frustration. It is the complexity of the whole issue. But what is really frustrating as a regulator and as an individual is the short term focus that people and organisations that can actually do something about it have, that they seem to be focused on the profits that they're making and the short term gain rather than realising that if this thing doesn't get sorted out now, you won't get insurance, you won't get a mortgage, you won't have a property. And in fact, you know, if things get particularly extreme, our entire climate is going to change. And what, for instance, if you're a grower or a farmer, what currently is your product is not going to be possible anymore. So it's that short term focus. It's like intensification of housing. I hate the idea, but I know that it's necessary if we're going to protect the green parts of the country and the forest and so on that are going to assist in dealing with lessening the risks of climate change and so on. But I better stop because I could go on. No, no, no. There's time for that. But I want you [00:12:37] Speaker 1: members of the audience as well. I know you're not shy. You may not laugh at my jokes, but I know you'll participate in more serious ways. Alan, I detect an implication from what you said before that, yes, it's all very well, you know, as Janet pointed out, the private sector ignores the elephant in the room, but in the public sector, we are as well a bit, aren't we? We are as well in a sense that businesses, as Janet's pointed out, are not looking long term, but perhaps the public sector also isn't looking [00:13:07] Alan Freeth: long term in terms of what it's doing. Yeah, I mean, I think that we've got Matt and Simon Upton who do these amazing reports that point out long term issues and challenges facing us. And the problem we face, any of the Wellingtonians in the room will know the number 14 bus that comes down from Wadestown Hill. Anyone? Yes, there is a pop function on the app. A few in the room. So I stand on Lampton Quay and climate change is that, you know, somewhere up in Wadestown. It doesn't mean anything to me. Yeah. It's just there, right? I know it's on its way. Well, I hope it's on its way. Maybe it's not now. It's always crowded. You know, and by the time it gets to the beehive, I might start to get a little worried and thinking, well, someone's got to do something. And then by the time it's right on me, it's whether I step out in front of it or not. And I think that's the challenge. And I think that's where I certainly become very frustrated over it's like that movie, Don't Look Up. You know, I mean, for goodness sake, we've got an issue and it's going to involve personal change. It's going to hurt, you know, and it's going to hurt profits. But as Oliver has pointed out, everything's interconnected. It's going to get you on the end, whether it be through your investment or otherwise. So, you know, I applaud the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner and others who continue to push the message about the need for interconnection, about cooperation, about working together, and that's where the public service needs to provide an example. [00:14:47] Matt Patterson: I think there are instances of people having their head in the sand, but I also think we're probably being a little bit hard on ourselves. Climate change is a huge problem. It's very complex, and the solutions are very, very complex. And each of us individually, or even as groups or agencies, only have limited capacity to do things. So when you've got limited capacity, you focus at a particular task at hand. And that's one of the reasons we have multiple regulatory tools. We've got an emissions trading scheme to put a price on carbon, and there's several agencies who focus on that. That's Oliver's day job around the tree side of it. And then there are other parts of that emissions trading scheme. But it's not enough. The emissions trading scheme won't do it alone. That's why we have a clean car feedback. That's why we're getting a clean car standard when that bill eventually passes. We need other things. So those are other forms of regulation. Those are ones you can quite clearly tie to climate change. But other regulations have a lot to do with climate change. The Resource Management Act, it's a planning statute. But a lot of our actions, both to mitigate climate change and adapt to climate change, come out of the Resource Management Act. A lot of the powers or the issues that Janet deal with, deals with our Resource Management Act issues. But even the national policy statement on freshwater and its environmental standards, if you're cutting nitrogen use for water quality reasons, you're also combating climate change. So I think often people have that kind of narrow view that we're not doing enough. But when you sum those up, yes, it's still not enough, but it's a start for us getting there. [00:16:29] Speaker 5: There's stuff still going on. Oliver, what do you say to that? I agree. I think we are pretty good at beating ourselves up and absolutely agree with the panel. We have so much more work to do. We've only just started to put some of the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle to take the picture. When I came into my role running the ETS for forestry about six, seven years ago, the main job was actually running deforestation the returns. People are just cutting down forests because let's go to dairy. We lost 70,000 hectares to dairy. We don't do very many deforestation returns now because the price of carbon has gone from about $3 to $85 a time. Yeah. Okay. So the ETS is doing a job now that it didn't do six, seven years ago, which was preventing deforestation. That's good. We need to hang on to some of that. But going forward here too, I mean, the sharp price increase in carbon has been one thing, but and there are large calls for, you know, push it up. Just push that price of carbon up into the 200s. I'd like to know if everyone in the audience realizes that every day you're contributing to the emission trading scheme price. If you fueled up your car, put the jug on this morning to make some tea, you contributed to what the emitters had to go and get units for. Things just get more expensive. And that is in the forestry side, that is not, that is not a solution to our, to our outcomes as we, we cannot plant forest out of our problem here. We need to see the rest of the regulatory package come through to bring the actual emissions down. We must offset too, but we must bring down as well. [00:18:10] Speaker 1: So it is a call for coordination. It's a call to recognize the bleeding obvious in terms of I am in this sector. I'm a dealer in the sector. I'm a dealer in this system. But also, I think from what you've all collectively said, it's those who are indirectly touched. Regulating financial instruments actually has a bearing on climate change because the instruments could be affected by, by coastal erosion with property on it, where people live. It's, and I think Matt, this is your point, the wider tectonics, looking at the entire estate. I guess going further, and I think it touches, Alan, on what you've implied about relationships. What do you say to the importance here of the treaty in terms of looking at the overall tectonics of who can play and who can deal as a whole? [00:18:59] Alan Freeth: In respect of treaty? Yes, yes. I was going to make a comment about that because we, I'm Mr. Grumpy. He's Mr. Happy. Just in case you haven't read that out. I apologize for that. I aren't usually grumpy all the time. I start down the back, might disagree. What we have a very large program in EPA about Maturanga Māori, which now must be taking into consideration in our decision-making committees. And my expectation is that they will be bringing into their decisions, issues of Maturanga, which will be about guardianship and about stewardship for generations that may have a very different view. And I'm going to use an example from our friend from Australia rather than a New Zealand one, which I was lucky enough to be in Western Australia with some traditional owners. And the issue that occurred was around a new gas plant and the industry was suggesting they would manage the carbon emissions by offsets, which I just think is personally, I don't buy into, particularly when they're brought offshore in the next 50 years. And the traditional owners demanded to meet with the industry players and the industry players said, this is what we're doing, we're doing that. And they said, no, no, no, no, we understand all that. We understand your technology, we understand your science, but this is our land and we have an obligation to the world, not to you or Australians, but to the whole globe. So tell us how you're going to do that better. And I think that needs to be brought into this mix. It may not be popular, but it's a whole different perspective. And it's not a Western colonisation perspective, you know, it's not it's there, let's exploit it. It's, hang on a minute, intergenerational. [00:20:52] Speaker 1: Yeah, Mr. Happy. Okay, thank you. I'm not going to call you Mr. Grumpton. [00:20:57] Matt Patterson: I had an interesting conversation with our Kawhakahare Te Ao Māori yesterday about climate change and a Māori worldview of climate change. And her view was, it's not quite resonating this kind of mitigation react approach because a Te Ao Māori worldview is about restoring kind of balance and that real connection with the land. And it doesn't mean that we have to go back to what we had before. And it's, it's taking that holistic approach to, to the land and to the environment. Yeah. And it's, that's important. That's important to Māori. It's important to almost all of us. I mean, when we, when you're going out and talking to farmers about climate change, sometimes you get a viscerally negative reaction because it's their land, it's their livelihood. It's a real key, key issue. And in many ways, it mirrors what you hear from Māori, who are really worried about their land, their whakapapa. Yeah. I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's about action and restoring that balance to, to get us forward. [00:22:06] Speaker 1: And it won't be a question that's lost when we're joined by Lily Anderson later, um, who heads up Tehara Fiti. And that will be a question. Members of the audience that one, but hopefully not all 280 of you will be, um, potentially inviting you to look at in terms of, the climate change aspect. Um, I guess what's coming through in terms of, of, of the express and implied kind of questions. I've got a nice one here from the audience. Thank you. Keep them going. Uh, what are the main barriers that regulators face to doing more about climate change? So we, we've established that we are doing stuff. It's not a complete Dr. Strangelove situation. It's a bit of Peter Sellers. There is something, it needs to be more coordinated. Um, but you know, if, if I need to get off the ground for starters, I'm a regulator, climate change is in my portfolio, [00:22:55] Janet Whiteside: or maybe it isn't overtly. Where do I begin? Um, well, one of the key problems is it's not necessarily in your portfolio or in your legislation by which you are bound. And when there is, I mean, at the moment, what have we got? We've got the Climate Change Response Act, which is unintelligible to people don't understand, understand that stuff. And if you talk to members of the public or even colleagues, I mean, you go through it and through it, what does this mean? The Climate Change Act that's coming has come out third out of the three pieces of legislation, which I think is insane. It should have been the other way around and it should have been first. Um, so, I mean, we're absolutely limited, but we're up against this attitude of, um, it's interesting that you see that this is my land, I'll do what I want with it, and that short-sightedness. I must admit, Federated Farmers have got a meeting in the same building today, so it'd be interesting to see [00:23:54] Speaker 1: what they're discussing. It's all about relationships, Janet, we can, you know, look at the exhibits. [00:23:58] Janet Whiteside: After their last announcement, because if you sit down and actually talk to people and discuss it, and you have the opportunity to do that one-on-one, you get somewhere. It's, it's the groups that are [00:24:09] Speaker 1: the problem sometimes. It's an interesting paradox, isn't it? Because, I mean, Alan, it's also I think you've said to me offline, it's a picking up the phone, you know, it's knowing who's in your black book when you need to talk. But the difficulty sometimes is it's sort of action, [00:24:21] Alan Freeth: action, not your jaw. Yeah, I think, um, that makes a good point. The natural resources sector, in terms of regulation, is highly fragmented. Um, and often, uh, councils and the EPA are unsure who's doing what. By legislation, it's just not clear. And then that's compounded, uh, in the same between Oliver's unit and us, we run the emissions trading scheme, the bank itself, and have close working relationships. And that fragmentation makes life hard when you're trying to deal with issues so big and so complex. Uh, and, and Matt's referred to you, end up focusing on your own issue. So I, I guess for us, and you're bound by legislation, again, and I made reference to it before, I guess for us, um, if, if we can't get legislation changed, because we are the Environmental Protection Authority, that's what we're meant to be doing, uh, then we see an avenue in with Makaranga, um, and with, um, uh, particularly with the Supreme Court's decision just recently that Tikanga is law, L-A-W. Yep. Not L-O-R-E. Yep. Um, we've had a chance to come in there and perhaps get, uh, tested in court some of these decisions, which the industry and others will say that's outside your mandate. [00:25:38] Speaker 1: Yep. And leave that to the Supreme Court. That's an interesting and growing area. And also, it's, it's a creative area. So some of the questions coming through, um, you know, how do regulators, I think we've answered this in part, help drive climate change in the system, in the ecosystem. Let's not forget that point. When the tools, the legislation are not sufficient or not great. And you say, stretch the envelope, check your mandate, check what's in there. And also, I'm detecting your saying, Oliver, check what's not. This may touch and concern you where you didn't think you were a climate change regulator, but you are. I just can't. I absolutely agree. We need an [00:26:22] Speaker 5: update in our legislative platform. Absolutely. But that shouldn't stop us from doing anything. So one of the problems that we have here is that carbon climate change is almost like this invisible vapor. And that just is like a mind block for many people. You need to move past that aspect. We have a problem. It's difficult to define, literally. Um, but we don't have great evidence bases exactly what to do. We know the world's going to change. We know the seas are going to rise. How much? I don't know. That's changing. But we need to develop the evidence bases. We need to come back to understanding how we work with ambiguity. That's all this is, really. It's very ambiguous. When you reach, you hit ambiguity. There are really well proven policy frameworks that regulators can apply to, to knock down that ambiguity, ambiguity side. We've done it for centuries, actually. Yeah. Right. We've, we've sailed and moved around the world and encountered new lands, new people, et cetera. It's always been ambiguous, this planet. We can use frameworks that are available to help us build the evidence cases that we need for the interventions that we can go forward. The other aspect I would just want to just say is, um, change is probably the most important word in climate change, right? And that, in that sentence, change is hard. If any, I'm sure many here have gone through change processes internally, et cetera. And it is really hard, right? You're trying to take all those staff with you. And some may be, you know, may not be with you later, or they're going to be re... There's, it's really hard. And you think about how much you wrap support around to put a really good change through. And you're lucky if you get to take everyone with you. We're trying to take the whole country with us. And if you see some of the landowners that we have, they're terrified of climate change, not from being told what to do by the regulator, but they're also terrified from what may be impacting their land, their income, their house is on the land. It's not a factory that's separated. It's a family enterprise. And what happens to the land happens to... We need to support and take them on a journey around this here. And one of the key things that regulators often need to appreciate is we don't own the land often in this space. And if you accept that factor with hand on heart, accepting that we must work with these landowners to find these solutions that will work for all of us. Otherwise, it's just going to be barrier after barrier. No, no, no. [00:28:52] Speaker 1: And it's a holistic approach, isn't it? I mean, it's looking at it. I think that's what, what you're saying, Oliver. But I think what you're also saying is without being glib about this, there's nothing new under the sun. This is a nasty problem, but it's another regulatory problem. There are tried and tested traditional frameworks, both in the policy regulatory relational place and how we deal with problems. Bite size. Again, what, to the extent we can say this, we've got 280 people who'd be chomping at the bit for this. What does this mean to the regulatory practitioner or those working with them? What, what is it that they can do when they leave today? One thing, anything. [00:29:32] Matt Patterson: I think always look out for continuous improvement and what could be done better or differently and where the gaps are. I mean, we've talked a bit about change and the regulatory environment is not static. Back when I was dealing with the Climate Change Response Act, it only did two things. We bought it on greenhouse gas emissions and had a very simple emissions trading scheme. It's now twice the size. It has carbon, but it has a climate change commission. The emissions trading scheme. There's a whole bunch of things that never was actually designed to do, and that's changed. We're adding regulatory instruments all the time. And one of the roles, and it's a great thing about working with the parliamentary commission with the environment, we can step back and go, "Oh, there's a gap there. Oh, that's not working very well." Yeah. But we only know that if I talk to all of you who have done that thinking, "Oh, this isn't working very well. I wish we had X." Yes. And it's that continuous improvement in innovation and thinking from you that helps change the system a little bit at a time. The interesting thing is, I mean, sitting, [00:30:35] Speaker 1: you know, if I could put it this way, where you were in or near parliament, there is that activism where people voice their displeasure in ways which are very profound these days. And I'm thinking, of course, about the occupation. And one of the questions here is talking about ignorant and ill-informed climate activism and the negative attention it brings in the debate to provide solution to climate change challenges. But the first three words for are, "Are you concerned about that?" Because to the extent you're selling a mandate and a mission, what do you say to those who go off the rails about the cause? And that's for anyone. What do you say, members of the audience? I mean, it's a tricky one, isn't it? You've got activism. You've got people taking all sorts of positions. What does that kind of citizen action do for you as regulators? These are questions as well as comments. So pop something in. [00:31:29] Alan Freeth: I'll conflate those two questions, one about what to do and that one. First disclaimer, I was on the evil side. I ran corporations for 25 years. My job was to internalise profits, externalise costs. So that's the job. Don't kill yourselves. And you work for a company like Telstra, you get that story very quickly. So the one thing you can do is be courageous and call out [00:31:52] Speaker 1: behaviours. Given the top 10 biggest emitting companies are likely contributing half of New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions. One questioner says, what are the regulators doing to hold them accountable? And I think we've sort of looked at aspects of that already. Just in closing, because I think we unfortunately, we have to close it. We could go on for forever with all of these. Panelists, what are your kind of final thoughts? What keeps you up at night? What's, you know, the Dr Stranger, Peter Sellers thing that you'd leave the audience with? And Janet, to you. [00:32:28] Janet Whiteside: I think, I'm also thinking back to the previous questions, is we really have to start pushing and speaking up. As regulators, it's tricky. We're stuck with our jurisdictions, but take every opportunity to have your voice heard. Take every opportunity. If they're asking for submissions, get involved in that process in your organisation and individually, you know, as a person. I think you do need the extremes in protest, because that's when people start taking notice. But there's various levels of protest. You know, just every little step, but keep pushing for change. Because you said, we've got it coming. No, we've got it now. Fiji, for the last seven years, has had to start relocating villages and things like that. And we are seeing it now. This is not some fantasy in the future. It's real, and we need to [00:33:24] Matt Patterson: take it seriously. Thank you, Janet. Alan. I agree, Janet. Matt. I've dealt with environmental issues for my entire career, and it'd be really easy to be pessimistic about it. I mean, the trends and the graphs all show us going the wrong way. I was an international climate change negotiator for a while, and that is like banging your head against a brick wall. When the news out of Egypt and COP is actually what happens every year at those big negotiations. The progress is glacial compared to the urgency. There's a whole bunch of reasons why it's glacial. And if I worried about that, I would never get any sleep. I would be kept up at that time. What gets me out of bed in the morning is the chance to change that and make a difference to that. And that's why I have environmental jobs, because I can make a little change and a difference, and so can all of you. I think in the climate change [00:34:24] Speaker 5: conversation, it's always very easy to kind of, because it is pretty stark, the reality, you paint a very dystopian future. And you know, and Alan, you know, riding the atomic bomb down, I really took me back to something. I think about the film and move on. I know, I agree, but I'm a father of two young kids, and that's one of the reasons I work in this field, because I could work wherever I want, probably. And it is not easy for me to think about leaving a dystopian reality for them to come into, right? And it's also a really, it's a really bad mind frame. Monday to Friday, thinking about how you kind of minimize the worst, we owe future generations much more than that. And I don't lose a lot of sleep when I hear stuff comes out of COP, because it's always like that. And guess what? COP isn't going to save the day. It's people like us, right? Like there isn't some international A team that's going to just rock in here and sort it all out. It's people like us. We're it, right? And that's the key thing here, is that we need to create some rules that will ultimately, I'll just be brief here, right? Create some rules that stop some stuff that needs to happen. We need to enable, we need to build for a future that is going to change. And that could be exciting. That could be actually an amazing competitive advantage for New Zealand. There's a great opportunity in this. Every, it's, it's problem opportunity, right? Yin and yang. You have to be balanced in both of those. And if all we push on is this, the negatives, and they all stop that and stop this, you're never going to, you're never going to realize actually the pearl that could be there as well. So I just encourage, you know, for regulators to be thinking through, how can we enable the changes that we need to have happen here? Because that's going to feel awesome, right? Like really good stuff in your heart to feel good about doing. And that's the key thing for all of us, I think, to be thinking through in this challenge. And that's a lovely place to end it. Oliver, Matt, Alan and Janet, thank you very much.