The N-roads baseline. The biggest change, of course, is it used to be 3.6 degrees C by 2100. Now, this baseline is 3.3. The reason for the change, most all of it, is due to our inclusion of the connection between climate change, temperature increase impacts, and then GDP growth, what we call the economic damage function. There's a whole other article and video on that topic. But I'd like to show you more of the changes in the behavior in the energy system, in the land system, and so on here in this video. Before that, I wanted to say a few words about the baseline and how we think about the baseline. The key thing is that we think of our baseline as a reasonable starting point for model experimentation. It is not our forecast of the most likely future. Instead, we start here and allow you to use N-roads to see what would it take to get emissions down first to deliver upon say the Paris agreements, or down to 2 degrees, or 1.5. I've got some notes here because Janet Chikoshkin, our team, wrote out some words I want to capture really exactly. So think of it as an approximate aggregated implementation of current global technological policy and investment conditions. So you know there are policies around the world, here in the US, the inflation reduction act in China, and 1 plus N. These policies and the ones in Africa and Asia and South America are all over. They're promoting renewable energy. They're also subsidizing oil and gas, promoting electrification and energy efficiency. Now these are the general policies around the world, but we don't explicitly capture national, state, local, international policy, like some say international energy agency, IEA, steps policy tries to add up a lot of those. We also don't of course include pledges or any goals and no strengthening into the future, but also no weakening or backsliding of policies is how we think about it. And just to get the words right, the baseline represents the state of the world if societal and technological changes were to continue at the current rate without additional policies or actions. So that's how to think about it. Now let's go look and see some of the big changes here in this new version of N-roads. Let's switch over to some slides. The big change is that greenhouse gas emissions went down. Here we are in the old version. This is from 2000 to 2100 and now in the new version. As I said, mostly due to the change in the economic damage function. But there's some other important contributors and other trends for you to understand within the simulator. And to show you those trends, we removed the damage function so you could really see say the energy sector before and after without this change to overall GDP over time. So cold. Here was cold before. Now in this new version, cold after we have less coal. Less coal on the baseline. Less oil in the baseline. Partly due to the fact that we have this five dollar a ton carbon price around the world. And also we have more growth of wind and solar. Well, there it is. More wind and solar renewables before and after. So significant growth in wind and solar. Partly due to that carbon price. Partly due to continuing subsidies in our simulator out into the future. And then third, faster than anticipated drops in the cost of wind and solar. Big changes with net land use emissions or Lulu CF. This was the old version where we just assumed those emissions would stay flat around three gigaton CO2 per year. Now more deforestation. More drops in overall sequestration into forest due to forest degradation. And overall improved modeling, we have much higher net land use emissions without bioenergy. And then if we add in bioenergy here and we think you should, this is do burning trees, the rotting and the soil respiration, it's even higher. So higher land use emissions and you'll notice when you play with the model, more potential for mitigation by cutting these emissions. Also more electrification. This is the electric share total capital transport before and after. Before and after. There's a whole video about some of those changes. So where do we land in the world of all the other models that are out there and their assessments of current policies? Well, the state of the yard of the science is this recent report by the IPCC. We call it AR6. Go to the summary for policymakers at spm.5 shows this very helpful diagram of global greenhouse gas emissions where the red line is the mean for implemented policies with the 25 to 75 percent range here. This fan and then five to 95 percent confidence all the way out there. All the various models assessments of current policies. It's also showing in green what it takes to get to two degrees in 1.5. So if that's what the models think when they add up all the implemented policies where is N-roads? Well, N-roads is right here. You can see the blue dot around 2030. That is at the upper end of the range and the upper end around 2050. Then at the upper end of the 25 to 75 percent tile out in 2100 showing the long-term impact of including the economic damage function. So that's where we sit. The upper end of the range or upper range of implemented policies as convened by IPCC. The other comparison is to look and see where we fit and we're most comparable within the world of integrated assessment models to scenarios assessing current policies for three very important integrated assessment models as convened by the network on greening the financial system or NGFS. Those three are shown here in green. You can see G-cam from P&L here in the United States for what they for their future for greenhouse gas emissions. In red is remind magpie out of Putsdam Peak in Germany and then in brown message globoeum out of IASA in Austria. You can see that they're clustered fairly close together. Then we add in N-roads. N-roads is a little bit above all of them but within the range and we can show you more about why we are above. One interesting note is that when we remove the bioenergy emissions of CO2 whereas some of the other models treat bioenergy as carbon neutral we don't. So when you remove those emissions we get much closer to being within the range. So most comparable to these IAMs is one way to other the other way to think about how we fit into this overall world of other models that are out there. Okay there's our baseline. Those are the big changes that you see in the model the energy sector in the land use sector and where we fit in the family of all the other projections out into the future. I hope this was helpful. Go get them.