Sorry, I'm really sorry about that. I'll be as quickly as I can then. So I'm going to start and pull together some of the themes and discuss what you heard earlier. But I'll bring them together at the end of what I'm just about to say now. I just want to first reiterate how serious the challenges that we face and probably most of us have got some handle on that here. We signed up to 1.5 to 2-3-centigrate internationally. And the emphasis has been increasing on 1.5 to 3-centigrate, and the impact of the diet and the impact of the diet and people are dying at 1.1-centigrate. And that's one of the more emphasis now on this 1.5, at least in terms of what we should be aiming for. But when you play that out in terms of the science, what we get from the science is that total amount of carbon dioxide we can dump in the atmosphere. And to give us a 50-50 chance at 1.5, that's about 400 billion tons, which I'll come back to a second. And for Wilbur Lake to do this, it's about double that 800 billion tons. That sounds like a lot. But 400 billion tons is slightly under 10 years of current emissions. And even 800 billion tons, just 20 years. We're currently using the carbon budget at about 1% of the month for 1.5 to 3-centigrate. 1% every month. That means so far this year we've used up 10% of the carbon budget that's left for 1.5 to 3-centigrate. So if you play out the arithmetic from the intergovernmental panel on climate change science, just the standard arithmetic, nothing in fineness in this, no quantization, really in this. What you look at then is that the wealthy parts of the world need to be zero emissions. And this is principally for fossil fuels. Zero fossil fuel use by 2030 to 2035. And the poor relations have about 10 or 15 years in the world, that probably 24 to 2050, the very latest. And that does tell us something actually straight away about this concept of offsetting that we were talking about, spoke about earlier. And that sort of framing every sector is in the other midst of war. It's incredibly difficult to get anywhere near this. But I think do it more. But we will not have surplus capacity for people to offset elsewhere in another sector, or indeed elsewhere for another country. Offsetting just leaves business as usual, essentially unchanged. And so offsetting in this world, then at 1.5 to 2 cent of end world, offsetting is part of the problem. So let's now sort of roll back and think about, what would we have to do then? And there's been some discussion in a way to deliver on this. We've had 30 years of failures so far. And tweaking the business as usual, and we have today carbon markets with future technologies and so forth. It's not going to get us anywhere near the carbon budgets that we now face. We are going to face a muscle style roll out of low on zero carbon technologies. Those technologies being things like the retrofitting of our houses, public transport, massive electrification is the most less the sort of sex-y-ended it, like lots and lots of big carbon EVs or lots of future carbon dioxide removal. It's much more the sort of, you know, we're almost the grub's technologies that allow us to live well in our lives today. But that in itself, we're never insufficient. We've left it so late, technology cannot deliver in isolation. It's a prerequisite, we're not enough. We also need profound shifts in the socio-economic structure that we have today. I mean, and previously pointed this out. And this is most of this is about shifting the wealth and the resources, the labour and the resources and the relatively furious, who've done remarkably well at the system, the high emitters, not just the billionaires, people like myself here, removing the resources and labour from the currently furnished luxuries of people like me, to help us make this transition in infrastructure. So it's not the old tape from the mix gifts to poor, it's the hybrid of tape, those of us who are very high emitters and consumers of the tier of goods, and use that labour and resources to transform our physical infrastructure, to be in line with 1.5 degrees centigrade. So this is a huge challenge. What would it look like? It's like the sketch that's out, what we're talking about. Well, these are just some examples, I could think about this, a moratorium and airport expansion. Maybe a 90% cut in all air travel by 2030, a 50% cut by 2025, no more internal combustion engine cars by 2025. A huge shift of ways from the private cars in the cities and urban environments towards public transport, active transport, virtual communication. Maybe the moral environment should think about EVs, but a rental model rather than ownership model. A retrofit existing homes, but not just a pilot scheme, actually rolling this out on the mass street by street. Passive houses, standards on all new properties, and also mass and sizes. Why are we building properties that are 2, 300, 400 meters square? We should be looking at 150s of very large house, nothing bigger than that. When we start existing houses, they're larger than that, and need to be split up into smaller properties. That's because we need those labour and resources to make this transition. And a massive rollout on top of all of this, of course, of electrification. Because we have to electrify most of the energy system, which is only 18% of our current EV system is electric. The rest of it, the rest of it, the other 82% is not. They're huge cross-associated with this, but that's why this reallocation is really important. The next time we're having to get political momentum for this, this is just, you know, this is a bit like Anne was saying, this is a revolutionary shift in the norms that we have today. I don't think it's quite so hard to get people behind this. If we're more honest about this challenge with them, the majority of people who have responded to climate change will be better off. There'll be lots of high qualities to cure jobs for the next 20 years during this. There'll be an efficient infrastructure. There'll be improvements in air quality, there'll be urban cities and so forth. And where the government has got so roads, there'll be affordable heating at home. There's always people that are now in fuel quality. And that's not just the poor. They include the median and the median income people in the UK now. The countries will be the towers will be quieter. Our cities will be have more areas for green space, for parks and so forth, for our kids and so forth, all of those things there. But of course, who will pay for that huge shift there, for the cost for this? And that's where this shift in the Labour is really important. So we know what to do in this. And we know that most people will be better off from doing this. Good jobs, great air, affordable housing and decent public transport. But a small group of us will have to go through significant sacrifice in our material wellbeing. We will not do that voluntarily. So the question to me is, is much less what do we need to do? We know what we need to do. It's not how can we fund it? We know how to fund it. We have the money there. And we also know that a lot of wealth in our society is perhaps under people like me. So the question I think really is, how do we change the debate? So it's not driven by the journalists, the academics, the entrepreneurs, the policy papers, all of whom are in the high emission category. And they've completely ensured that equity is sideline in all the debates so far. How do we get the debate to be directed by the majority? The majority who would do really well out of this challenge. But whilst at the moment the papers and the academics and all the other experts here talk about this as without any real shift of business as usual, because we've lighted business as usual. There's no way we can make such a changes to the majority. But if we were honest about this, it would be attractive to most people to make the scale of changes that are necessary. Whilst the debate is dominated by this small elite group, and there have been a climate denial here, I mean the mitigation denial. Those of us who do not want to put in place the scale of challenge is necessary, because it would mean fundamental changes to our lives. So if we could address that part of it, I see I didn't think with that far away from such social and technical tipping points that could move us towards delivering probably struggling 1.5 but certainly heading towards a well below 2 degrees centigrade.