There is low hanging fruit on the software side to be achieved with AI. And I totally see why it's an attractive investment proposition. We just need to not forget the high hanging fruit 'cause that's gonna make a big dent in emissions or conversely, contribute to an overshoot of emissions if we don't solve them Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are in the world. Welcome to episode 243 of the Climate Confident Podcast, the go-to show for best practices in climate emissions reductions. I'm your host, Tom Raftery, and before we start a quick reminder, this podcast now has a subscription option. For just five euros or dollars a month, you can unlock the full back catalog of hundreds of conversations with climate leaders who are actually moving the needle. Subscribers also, get a personal shout out here in the show, plus direct access to me so you can pitch new directions, guests, and ideas for Climate Confident. Everyone else still gets the most recent 30 days of episodes for free. But if you want the archive and a hand on the steering wheel, hit the subscribe link in the show notes. And this week we have a new subscriber. everyone give a warm welcome to Cecilia Skarupa. Hopefully I'm getting your name right Cecilia. Thank you so much for signing up. Everyone else bunch up a bit on the Climate Confident Plus bench there to make room for Cecilia. And now on to today's conversation. My guest this week is Johanna Wolfson. Johanna's co-founder and general partner at Azolla Ventures, a venture fund doing climate investing differently. Johanna and her team deploy what's known as catalytic capital. Money designed to take on higher risk to back the kind of breakthrough technologies that traditional investors often overlook. In this conversation, Johanna shares what's really happening inside climate tech investing right now. The tension between profit and purpose, why waiting to see what happens could be catastrophic, and where the biggest untapped opportunities lie from methane reduction to climate resilience and beyond. Johanna, welcome to the podcast. Would you like to introduce yourself? Sure. Thank you, Tom. I'm Johanna Wolfson. I'm really delighted to sit here with you today and talk about Climate and I am the co-founder and general partner at Azolla Ventures. We are a US-based, early stage venture fund that does a bit of a different spin on venture investing in climate tech. We can talk more about that, but the long and short of it is that we are able to take on outsized risk relative to what some other venture firms are able to do because of the type of capital that we deploy. And that means we can bring forward solutions that might not otherwise get there shot and that are really important for the climate. So in a way we're an extension of the existing financing suite and venture model. And we're able to support some really impactful companies along the way. Fantastic. And as a co-founder, tell me a little bit about the origin story of Azolla. Oh, sure. So maybe starting with my own origin story. I'm a scientist by training and did my work in graduate school at the lab bench at MIT, and felt really strongly that we needed better models to support the maturation of technologies from the bench into businesses and products that would make a difference in social matters, whether that be energy, climate, and environment or, or otherwise. And so I, I felt strongly that I wanted to work on that process and improving our system for supporting those technologies. Meanwhile, a colleague named Sarah Carney was starting a nonprofit called Prime Coalition. She had an, enormously, strong insight, which is that you could use what we now call catalytic capital. So grant style capital coming from foundations or high net worth individuals and actually use that to support under supported, market based technology solutions. And that, you know, there's a way to leverage this within the US tax code. But more broadly, you know, any grant like dollar could be used to support innovations that wouldn't otherwise be supported. And through my career early career, I was following that work and as I was kind of coming up to speed on commercialization support systems in the US government, I was at the Department of Energy and, and other roles that model was developing. And so, I was really excited as it Sarah and Prime Coalition were building that into a framework to come on board and join her and my partner, Matthew Norton to start our, our first fund underneath the Prime Coalition nonprofit that was Prime Impact Fund which was an all catalytic capital fund exclusively deploying this type of special capital to support startup companies that wouldn't otherwise get off the ground. Our partner, Amy Deford, joined us not, long after. And then we spun out Azolla Ventures inspired by that same work to be a larger and standalone effort that could pair this very special style of catalytic capital with more conventional investment dollars to both get companies started and grow them. And so, we've been now at this in one form or another for seven or eight years, and have learned a lot from building out this model and supported some, companies that are now, you know, en route to becoming category leaders, which is really exciting given our purpose, which is to make a really meaningful dent in climate. And to do that in a way that is additional meaning not what's otherwise going to happen but helping bring things into the world that we desperately need, but won't otherwise happen. And tell me what has surprised you most in your journey from being a scientist to the world of finance? I know that your podcast is about optimism and confidence and I, I fear that this answer might not be in that spirit, but I'll just, you know, we're here for the whole truth. Right. I think something that has surprised me the most is just how probably re, re reflects, if anything, my naivete as a scientist coming into the world of finance. Just how firm and all consuming is the pull of a returns first mindset in the world of impact investing and how shortsighted that can turn us as humans in the face of a cause that we all care really deeply about, which is climate. Okay, yeah. Makes sense. Makes sense. Unfortunately. And the Again, it reflects naivete. That feels very obvious. Now that I say it, Not at all. And the name Azolla Ventures has got an interesting provenance as well for people who are unfamiliar. Can you talk us through that? Of course. Azolla is a micro fern that is actually able to fix carbon in the form of carbon dioxide and it so happens that, many, many millions of years ago there was the planet was in a near runaway state of climate change due to relatively high at the time measures of CO2 in the atmosphere. And conditions evolved such that this micro fern called the Azolla fern could flourish and actually take down CO2 levels to a point where the planet was habitable again. And in geologic circles, that that is referred to as the Azolla event. And that is no less than what we're looking to be part of today in terms of, engineered solu and natural solutions that could cumulatively return the planet to a place of habitability. I will say the funny thing about the Azolla name, which I didn't know at the time, is that in some parts of the world and in, including in Canada Azolla is a weed, you know, like takes over ponds that people like to do their canoeing in. But you know, maybe that just reflects how powerful it can be when conditions are such in, in the balance of the natural world. But turns out we all have different reactions and, and connotations with the term. Okay, and why isn't Azolla taking over again and fixing the problem that you know, it fixed all those millions of years ago? An awesome question and I'd love to get an ecologist on board to give you the real answer. I can armchair ecologist an answer to that, which is probably to do with just the really, the extreme way we have intervened with our environment now relative to then. And the, way in which systems are so out of whack relative to, how things might have unfolded had humans not disregarded ecosystem balance along the way. That, in some Canadian ponds, Azolla is taking over, but globally it is not. Okay. And, I assume the original Azolla event happened over millions of years, whereas we now have tens of years to fix the problem that we've gotten ourselves into. Okay. It's exactly right in that that timeline is quite quite frightening, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah, it is. Let's start with the big picture, Johanna. What's the mood in climate tech investing right now? Is it cautious optimism, full steam ahead or something else entirely?'Cause we're kind of at a weird time now, given the new administration in the US and the pushback against ESG and climate regulations. Yes, it is a weird time and I think that weirdness will be reflected in my answer where I, I can't give a clean, mood read. To be honest. It's a mix of two different threads and I would characterize the threads one as full steam ahead, but it's it's like a spirit and an attitude and desire of full steam ahead, but actions not so sure. I think it's, it's maybe a tad early to call. The SITELINE just came out Siteline, which tracks venture investing just came out with a report showing at least early stage funding and others down. We'll need to wait a few months or more likely a few quarters to really assess the impact. But yeah, I, I would just say, you know, hearts, hearts and minds full steam ahead, deployment of dollars. Mm. Not so sure. There seems to be a wait and see. And I'm truly very concerned about that disconnect. We don't have a moment to spare, and that's actually putting it lightly. I mean, we have like negative time to spare. And so, any degree of pause and let's see how things evolve and, you know, let's, even just recently, let's wait to see whether the bill passes in Congress and then we'll, wait to see how we think about this sector or that based on that. Or another thing you hear in the US right now let's wait until midterm elections and maybe the mood will shift. It's like we don't. We don't have time. Nevertheless, that pause is happening. And so I just wanna be real about that, that I do see that pause happening. We're, we're working very hard at Azolla not to be part of that pause. And, there are other investors who are also, are acting as full steam ahead. I just wanna be clear that macro, we are seeing the slowdown. So, I think the venture community and the climate tech community and the, climate community generally needs to contend with that, that any pause matters a lot right now in terms of downstream impact. And I'm just curious, people in the climate VC space, I know you said earlier that everything is about the bottom line, but I gotta think that the climate vc community surely are a little more vocational than the rest of the community. And so I gotta think in this particular space, there's a little bit of more leeway. Oh absolutely. And I don't wanna, cast the wrong message here. I wouldn't say it's all about the bottom line. It is so nuanced and every firm has its own nuanced relationship with impact and returns and trade off or no trade off. And it's important to note that we, as, I think most climate tech impact related investors would agree, believe that in, in many cases there needn't be a trade off between very large impact and very large returns because you can really only reach impact if you leverage markets. So it's important to say that in most, in many cases you can achieve both. But that is a different thing than saying, what are we principally guided by? Are we making our investments from a standpoint of climate first with the climate needs, and then within that selecting for promising returns prospects? Or are we looking for great investments that we can say, have a climate angle? And those are, those are different worlds. They lead you to different places. And the reality is that climate tech investing runs the gamut from one of those to the other. And one thing that I think would really benefit this community is if we talked about that spread a little bit more openly and sort of, you know, identified that different perspectives on that. But you're absolutely right that climate tech investors, more so than generalist investors, see are co-optimising, let's say that for impact. And I wouldn't say are exclusively focused on the bottom line. There is this conception of double bottom line, and that's, really important. I think my starting point on the, what surprised me the most is how the bottom line dominates even if intention starts in the other place. But it's, it's all nuanced and it's, it's hard to talk about in a black and white way.'cause it's, it. The, the fact is that this is a very rich spectrum of investors who care a lot about impact. And the, the spread is varied and that's okay. When we invest in a company outright we're doing it at an early stage that, we're trying to get them started. It's a good and healthy part of an investing ecosystem that we also have investors that can follow onto us that are more focused on, that are eventually exclusively focused on commercial outcomes. That's important to get companies to a point of scale because markets are what is going to get them there. So we do need everyone involved. And I just think we need to be like even more upfront about what factors dominate investment decisions. And are you seeing any impact of the tariffs and policy uncertainties on the kinds of companies you fund, or is it changing the money flows in any direction? That's a great question. We have had a longstanding internal policy that we, don't underwrite any investments to government subsidy. They need to have structurally freestanding competitive economics absent any government subsidy. And that's probably because here we are in the US and we know that we have, you know, a political system that swings pretty widely on these matters. And so it hasn't meaningfully affected which companies we are investing in. That works two ways. It means that we're not underwriting to government subsidy today, but we never were. It also though means that areas that are considered maybe less out of favor perhaps today. I'm seeing less happening around us in carbon removal. I can come back to why I think that's shortsighted, but areas that are seen as outta favor that we think have a strong economic case, maybe because of a secondary value proposition relative to carbon markets or developing markets outside the US. Those are areas we're still really active in despite perhaps other US investors pulling back. We have an existing portfolio of companies across many different sectors in climate tech. And we are definitely seeing the impacts of what I referred to earlier as a pause in certain sectors that are considered out of favor today in the US. And so that's why even before, wherever the data, you know, whenever the data does come out, I do feel some confidence in being able to report kind of a slow down, anecdotally in terms of the, the mood that companies are experiencing out fundraising. But just broadly speaking, areas like geothermal, nuclear, and critical materials. Those are, considered more so in favor in the US right now, and are seeing stronger fundraising support and areas like offshore wind, carbon capture, we don't have solar currently in our portfolio, but I would assume the same is true there are seeing more so challenges in the US because investors are more skittish. I just, I just think that that's demonstrably true. And it's never a statement that there are no investors making investments in that category. It's just about, what, I have a hunch that the data will report on in a few quarters based on what we're experiencing in the market. And so, it may be interesting for you to know, and I think you know, a lot of your audience is based in Europe that we are just very actively looking for opportunities for companies to deploy in, in Europe. I feel, you know, really strongly about that. Probably no surprise based on my earlier comments about any slow down, any pause is a really big problem for the climate. And I don't care where we take a molecule of CO2 outta the atmosphere. It definitely doesn't matter. So, you know, any opportunities for early deployment, customer relationships and otherwise? You know, we're interested in, Europe and in west Asia in in Norway. Those are just some examples of places where our companies are looking to deploy right now. Partially incentivised by what we are experiencing on the ground as a slowdown in the US. Okay. And some say that VCs are cooling on climate because it's too hard, or too slow to scale. do you think? What do you think climate tech is still a good bet? VCs have always, I think, had that comment about climate tech, and it is true, it is harder to invest in climate than it is to invest in some areas of not climate. I think that's just true and it's for that reason that I agree with what you said earlier, that climate tech investors like the, there must be something more that is motivating them to do this hard thing, invest in climate. And a lot of climate tech investors, I mean, most everyone that I know is motivated by the climate mission. And is, trying to, you know, identify where their organisation and their firm, can have the most impact. I think it is a still a good bet. I think it will require time and that has always been true. If you kind of trace the history of climate tech investing back, in the 20 teens there was, a concern. The, the tide was all the way out on climate. Climate tech 1.0 had come and gone. A lot of people lost their money. They were trying to apply the traditional tools of venture to climate tech. It doesn't work because these technologies are very expensive to fund and scale, and they take a longer time to commercialise and, reach big outcomes. And then in kind of the late teens and early 2020s, we saw a resurgence of interest in climate tech which kind of had two prongs to it. There was a prong of more long-term capital that sort of recognised and accepted the longer timelines and larger capital requirements, and those funds were sourcing their capital from family offices and maybe foundation endowments that had some impact tie. And so there was, there was a way to start to square the circle on what was more challenging about investing in companies and that, that was the sort of the leading prong and then the following prong in, I would say 2021, 2022, when there was a big explosion of climate tech VC was a little bit more of tourists, I would say who were saying, oh, interesting. You know, climate tech could be a good bet. But we're a more generalist fund, so let's participate in that. I would say that what I believe is happening now that you're referring to is that the tourists are maybe leaving but that group of dedicated climate investors who really understand the long term, longer term view, I think is here to stay. and, and I think it's a good bet to answer the, the core of your question. The reason I think it remains a good bet is because we are talking about big pillars of the economy, right? I mean, we are talking about real value being built. When you talk about manufacturing goods, when you talk about production of building materials, when you talk about power generation that the world is gonna need for powering the AI revolution. And, you know, I, the list could go on. I mean, these are it is hard to deny the fundamental value that's built into our physical systems. And, if the world is to transition to a low carbon economy, that is going to be a very valuable undertaking. Whoever can win off of that. So, yes, it is still a good bet when you have capital that is well matched to the requirements of the sector. I will just also say that interestingly with the advent of climate and AI intersection. And, there's a lot of compelling companies that are developing AI based solutions for climate in one way or the other. It sort of presents the next frontier of what we often saw in, in the last boom of climate tech, which is, it's an easier proposition to make software based investments in climate tech. And you know, that will be true of AI based solutions here in this new wave. What we have to remember is the more impact oriented an investor is, the more they should be also thinking about, okay, if we, if we were to exclusively focus on, software ai, what are we missing? What's getting sort of left on the table say in hard to decarbonise sectors like cement or steel or shipping or, long haul transport or whatever it is. So there's, there is low hanging fruit on the software side and to be achieved with our, with AI. And I totally see why it's an attractive investment proposition. We just need to not forget the high hanging fruit 'cause that's gonna make a big dent in emissions or conversely, contribute to an overshoot of emissions if we don't solve them. And what about the other side of the equation? How are founders adapting to this political and economic moment? Are you seeing more creativity? More caution? A mix? I would say a mix. The creativity comes in, alright, how are we gonna get this done? How are we gonna deploy? How do we, look after a different capital stack if we're not seeing appetite and venture right now, or a venture on average is gonna wait to see what happens in late 2026. So, I would say the best founders I know get absolutely getting creative buckling down and saying any, any way forward is the right way forward. Whether that means, looking for customers in a market that we don't yet have connections, let's go make those connections. And it might take a little bit longer, but if we get our next deployment and it can report on positive techno economics, like that's gonna position us well, or let's get a round done. And it may not be the round you know, with a valuation uptick that I would've dreamed for or that I might have gotten, three years ago. But it's gonna, position me to build more value in, in my company. And you know, emerge three years from now, stronger and in a strong position to raise and who knows, maybe in a different environment. So absolutely the, the strongest founders I know right now are being creative, pragmatic and very much stalwart in their efforts. And also, conservative. It's kind of boring to talk about, but it's like very conservative capital planning. Right. If we used to fund companies to an 18 month runway because, you know, there was some confidence that as long as they're hitting their milestones and building good value, they can go out and raise again. Let's look a little differently at that and say, we have to make this last for 24 to 36 months, what does that look like? And we should be discussing those trade offs quite strategically because you're not gonna be out fundraising in the same environment that existed three years ago, and you have to, you know, adjust actions to comport. So we're having those discussions with companies as well. Interesting. And, you've said that you only back companies that can deliver gigaton scale reductions. That's quite a bold filter. What does that mean in practice? Can you give us any examples? Oh, sure. It is a bold filter and it's really important that it be a bold filter because otherwise there's plenty of probably good investments that we could make that won't truly make a difference and won't move the needle on climate. And that's not what we're here to do. And so it's quite important to us that we have a bold filter that, to be frank, cuts most things off. Most interesting solutions cannot achieve that outcome. And we, we accept that, right? So, I'll give one example that I'm really excited about and comports well with our earlier discussion about companies, increasingly finding markets outside the US which is a company called Calcarea. So this is a spin out from Caltech founded by an extraordinary person named Jess Atkins, who Caltech professor, you know, took a leave of absence to found this company because he was so compelled by the need to commercialise the technology that had been developed in his lab which is a reactor that accelerates the weathering of limestone. This is a natural process where you react, CO2 with, limestone form bicarbonates and it so happens that that is a form of carbon that can be stored effectively and long term effectively forever. And what Jess and his team discovered is that, they could actually form a reactor that accelerates this process from, a decadal to 100 year process, to something that can happen on, the order of tens of minutes in a reactor. And so, the concept of the company is to put reactors, onboard ships, and react the CO2 coming out of the diesel gen sets of ships, with the limestone brought on board, react that, and essentially in a, neutral way to the ocean, put carbonate ions into the ocean, effectively makes the sea water a little bit saltier, actually has the added benefit of Deac acidifying a bit, and effectively store carbon that way. And this is something the shipping industry is really excited about. They long term might plan to do some, switching of their fuels to methanol or other, but that's gonna take some time. And this is a near term solution. So shipping companies are really excited about this. Now add on to this, news we got earlier, a couple months back, which is that the International Maritime Organisation, the IMO, has now declared a global carbon levy across all jurisdictions. And so this is really exciting and something that Calcarea is really well, positioned to to take advantage of. And the carbon emissions, you know, coming from ships that are in operation at any one time is, well over a gigaton. And so, it just actually has this amazing image he shows, which is just the world lit up by ships that are at sea at any one time. Each, if you've been on a, cruise in the Greek islands or elsewhere, you see, you know what the emissions are coming outta these ships. And it's not hard to quickly see, you know, some emission sources are hidden. This one isn't. It's not hard to quickly see how high emitting the sector is, but also how hard to decarbonise it is. And so Calcarea's solution could vary effectively slash those emissions meaningfully and quickly. And there is a market now developing to incentivise customers to uptake solutions like that. So that's a great example of exactly what we're trying to do, right? We invested when this, technology was just spinning out of the university. We, alongside with other investors, and the team, are positioning that company to take advantage of these extraordinary tailwinds that now exist in a world that desperately needs a way to decarbonise shipping, which the the industry to its credit does recognise and that's why it's implemented or signal that it will implement this, global carbon tax. So that's very exciting and I think just a great illustration of what we're trying to do. And your portfolio includes everything from geothermal to bioplastics. Are there overlooked sectors that you're excited about right now? Ones that are not getting enough love? There are, and my favorite one to talk about, and there, there are more, but my favorite one to talk about is the high global warming, potential GHG's that are have, too little attention so that, mainly by which I mean methane and nitrous oxide. Methane of course, having many sources from, bovine emissions and wastewater treatments plants and, rice paddies and peatlands and nitrous oxide, having also multiple sources, but primarily single biggest source being in the agricultural sector. And to me just stepping back again, genuine naivete from a scientist here still finding her way in, in the world of, of finance but it's actually quite amazing that methane and nitrous oxide as the, the most harmful greenhouse gases, the, the most harmful crossed with most with highest volume concern. Greenhouse gases. They don't have any markets associated with them and they're actually the more urgent problem because they're causing near term warming. And, CO2, which is a huge problem and is the most prevalent greenhouse gas, of course. It has, has a longer term impact in the climate and is what we ultimately need to address. But the way that markets have developed with carbon removal markets primarily start targeting CO2, that happened more quickly still in its infancy sure, but it's clear that that is taking off. And if you talk to folks who are behind the scenes at the creation end of some of these markets whether that's in government or the voluntary markets, you know, they're thinking on methane is quite a bit more nascent. And that's actually just an urgent problem because we need to so rapidly take methane outta the atmosphere and it would be much more impactful in the near term than focusing on CO2. Don't take that to mean we shouldn't focus on CO2. We need to focus on all of it. But certainly if you were to look at our efforts you know, whether that's measured in dollars or time or, words spilled or ink spilled the effort does and thought and and resources don't really match the global warming impact on a per time basis at least that the science says. Okay. And historically most VC has focused on mitigation, but do you see a role for adaptation and resilience tech going forward? Oh, absolutely. I'm so glad you asked. We do, and actually it is a future area of focus for us at Azolla, and I know from other climate tech investors as well, to focus on adaptation and resilience as well. Now that should be sobering news because it actually reflects the fact that we are already at a place where adaptation and resilience technologies are sorely needed because the impacts of climate change are here. But they are worsening and there are folks who are, you know, have some concern that a focus on adaptation and resilience would, take eyes off the ball on mitigation efforts. And I think it's just important to, anytime we're talking about adaptation and resilience, to also say, no, we need to continue doing as much on the mitigation front as possible. Nor do I think it would be prudent to sort of ignore the clear and present and accelerating suffering that will be coming from the situation we already find ourselves in climate. So it's a long way of saying, yes, there's a role for that. There are, you know, obviously a lot of impact focused investors that have been investing in adaptation and resilience for quite some time. They may not call it that. But when you think about community infrastructure, human health, occupational health, those sorts of sub-sectors all have an adaptation and resilience element to them. And so in part, the job of a climate investor moving into adaptation and resilience is to understand that existing landscape that may or may not call itself climate relevant. And start to understand, you know, of these solutions that exist, what could be scaled, perhaps what could be scaled into geographies that aren't affected today, but will be unfortunately affected, in the coming five to 10 years. Those are the types of questions that are really complex, but I think, pretty important ones to, tackle when starting to proceed in adaptation and resilience. The other pretty important evolution of our model that's going to occur as we start making adaptation and resilience investments is traditionally when we have underwritten investments from an impact lens, it has, been to greenhouse gas emissions reduction potential. So as you said, the the gigaton scale potential, you know, if this technology is successful, does it have the potential to reduce CO2 equivalent emissions by a gigaton or so by 2050. And we've always been attuned to other impact aspects, but we underwrote to greenhouse gas impact and that will evolve in a, in a future fund where we're also investing in pure play adaptation, resilience investments. We'll be also evaluating impacts like biodiversity preservation, human health impacts, preservation of livelihood and, ecosystem preservation, that, that sort of thing. And we're actually in process now to plan that expanded impact framework, but that's another area where for climate tech investors who are coming from the mitigation framework, we are often talking first and foremost about greenhouse gas emissions. And that's a, probably an area of collective learning and collaboration to think about impact projections and evaluation in, other dimensions of impact beyond greenhouse gases. And where do you see the biggest opportunities for climate impact in the next 5, 10 years? Hmm. I think the biggest opportunities for impact, I'll, I'll name two. We've already touched on them both, but just to kind of put a bow on it. One, for climate impact really is the, the super polluters, the the methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases that are overlooked but spewing into the atmosphere and, bound to cause near term warming problems. That is the highest leverage I see for climate impact in the near term. Anyone who decided to put their focus there would be just extremely, highly additional and catalytic. So I don't wanna understate that. And then in five to 10 years, I think that this area of adaptation and resilience, I think will mature. Our thinking around how to support the scaling of adaptation and resilience solutions will mature quite a bit. There's a lot of good and important thinking to do there to make sure we get it right and that we don't fall prey to certain corners of, I think, negative investing behavior that could exacerbate the problems instead of ameliorating them. Things like, venture, the, the world of venture can tend to sort of support audacious claims and tell companies to go, go, go. Well, that doesn't have human implications, direct human implications when we're talking about taking carbon outta the atmosphere. If an audacious claim is overstated, it could have really negative implications if it's a human health, solution that isn't sort of properly vetted and and so forth. So I think the climate investor is coming into adaptation and resilience with care and some patience to really try to tackle some thorny questions around impact and what we call maladaptation, which is the risk of exacerbating problems rather than ameliorating them. That's actually a huge opportunity for impact because it's kind of a wide open space that people are talking about right now, but not yet deploying a lot of dollars into. In fact I have, with a colleague, a kind of developing a colleague from another fund, kind of developing a working group around adaptation and resilience investing so that we can start to get our heads around some of these thorny questions that aren't yet fully out there. And that's a really large area for impact, although sort of quieter one, which is its own type of important work to be done. Sure, sure. We're coming towards the end of the podcast now, Johanna. Is there any question I did not ask that you wish I did, or aspect of this we haven't touched on that you think it's important for people to be aware of? There is one aspect that comes up sometimes that I, that I, I like to, like, to make sure to touch on whenever I have a mic. And that is that I think it's probably no surprise based on some of my comments earlier in the episode that we give under attention to just where we sit on the curve of emissions relative to where we, where we thought we would be or where we said we needed to be. The implications of that are many, many of which we've talked about, but one of which we didn't. And that's the need to, research and plan around climate interventions in the case that they are needed. And this is obviously an. You know, climate interventions could be solar radiation management. They could be, other forms of natural intervention. This is a topic that can be pretty controversial. Which is exactly the reason that I think it's important to say out loud that we often, you know, there's kind of a standard line from folks who are looking into climate interventions that, you know, we don't want to have to use future climate interventions. But, we've been in fact intervening with the climate for, many, many decades by taking carbon outta the ground and putting it in the air. And we've been just doing that without any discussion. So let's be careful and intentional about any future going discussion. And so I really agree with that. I've become quite compelled by the community of folks who are doing, who are managing really responsible and informed discussions around society's potential future need to pursue climate interventions. And so I just encourage folks to kind of spend time and attention in that area and develop a point of view. Because I think the, the fact of where we sit on the march toward now we're, we've blown past one and a half degrees. I'm marching toward two and you know, truly at risk of surpassing that. The fact of the matter is that we're en route to needing some of those. And so, unless we massively change our trajectory, which is possible and something I hope for we should prepare for that. So, I guess it's just a call to encourage folks to face that or develop their own answer to that. Because I think that the time at which we'll have a societal level conversation forced about that topic is coming sooner than folks may think. Okay. Very good. Makes sense. Great. Johanna, if people would like to know more about yourself or any of the things we discussed on the podcast today, where would you have me direct them? They can visit our LinkedIn page for some kind of recent thought pieces from our team members. That's where we're kind of actively posting where we're out there, you know, talking to folks, publishing articles and so on. They can also contact us through our website or just send me a note. I check my LinkedIn, like to meet folks, especially in other markets who are doing other interesting things as we move into adaptation and resilience investing. That's another area where, we're eager to integrate with communities that already exist. Thinking about those topics. So yeah, please reach out to me and my colleagues on LinkedIn and we'd be excited to discuss collaboration. Fantastic. Johanna. It's been really interesting. Thanks a million for coming on the podcast today. Thank you so much, Tom. It was really enjoyable and thanks for having me. Okay, we've come to the end of the show. Thanks everyone for listening. If you'd like to know more about the Climate Confident podcast, feel free to drop me an email to tomraftery at outlook. com or message me on LinkedIn or Twitter. If you like the show, please don't forget to click follow on it in your podcast application of choice to get new episodes as soon as they're published. Also, please don't forget to rate and review the podcast. It really does help new people to find the show. Thanks. Catch you all next time.