S.

But not listening to the scientists on doing what they told us up front.

It is a nutter unmitigated disaster, and that is exactly what climate change is shaping up to be.

So I think setting a 2050 target for a company is a really easy thing for a chief executive to dio when that CEO knows that he is going to be long gone before the company for its clear, whether or not he's burning, not they're not his successor's successor's successor's problem.

Eyes being created by companies if they're not clearly, really well costed out and planned on the evidence for that provided to investors so that we can treat it seriously because we're able Thio credibility assess those targets on that for us, really is key is around having a nearer term targets with a demonstrably aligned Thio say a net 0 2050 outcome for a company with clear, well, costed, well explained, Well, evidence plans as to how you get there, why you get there and why you've set that target is supposed to any other.

The big change over the last few years has Bean the inclusion off the broader footprint of companies but what it called scope three emissions or the broader impact of shell.

So when you do, use your car and you fill it with shell petrol that the emissions from the car are out scope three emissions and included within our footprint.

So I think the biggest challenge has been finding a way off off articulating scope three emissions in a way that sensible for people like Nick in the investment community, and we've done that with what we call our net carbon footprint.