I'm all in favor of decarbonizing and we've rightly bashed fossil fuels and big oil, but they've collapsed their own capacity of new production of fossil fuels, but the rise of renewable has not been sufficient to compensate for that. That's why Brent Oil prices were already $100 per barrel before the Russian invasion of Ukraine. So we have to think about these things conceptually. And what's happened is that there's a lot of talk about net zero emissions and dealing with the environment. That's still good. Lots of talk about ESG. Yeah, but a lot of it, honestly, and I follow it closely, both in the corporate sector and the financial sector is greenwashing, green-wishing, green fig leaves. It's really talk and there is almost no action. So my worry is that all the solutions and there are plenty of solutions with current technologies are mission impossible. Mitigation means net zero implies negative economic growth with current technologies. Yes, it does. Where the recession, the worst in 60 years in 2020, net emission fell only by 9%. Adaptation is too costly and geoengineering is frick science, right? Throwing dust particle in the atmosphere to reflect the sunlight. So unfortunately, those solutions are not. And carbon taxes, as I said, to achieve two, you need a carbon tax of $200 a ton. Today, the average is two. So let me just end where we started on these predictions. They're quite dire. I'm sorry to tell you, you are bearish. But maybe they're realistic if you think about it. They're realistic. Okay, but you've also made, I mean, in the interim, in March, for example, 2009, you said the S&P would fall below 600. It gained 65%. You thought there'd be a... I made mistakes like everybody. I'm not perfect and I don't believe that anybody can predict things, you know, and I never claimed otherwise. These predictions are quite dire. You know, why should people be confident? And what do you hope that you got wrong? You're going to get wrong here. And what do you say to people in terms of being confident in your predictions? Because right now it's grab your head and go under the desk. Listen, we think that the world is going to be like the last 75 years. What I'm arguing is that before the 75 years between 1918 and 1945, with World War I, the Great Depression, trade war, inflation, deflation, hyperinflation, fascists and Nazis coming to power in Germany, in Italy, in Spain, in Japan and other countries, with World War II, where the Holocaust, and I'm Jewish, and then with all the other disasters. And my job is to say, we live in a very different world. We had 75 years of relative peace and prosperity in spite of all the economic cycle, in spite of all the mess. And we got used to actually half of humanity going from very poor to achieving less poor and then middle class. What if we go back not only to the 70s, and that's going to happen when I have a situation, what if we go back to the 1930s and 40s? The kind of mega threats that I worry about signal that that's a possibility. Is it inevitable? Absolutely not. Are the policies that are going to lead to prevented? Yes. But my view is those policies are hard to achieve. The question is, are we going to do it? And from a realistic point of view, my fear is that we don't have the consensus internally and externally to do the right thing. That's why we're there towards a disaster. All right. Do one bit of hope at all, and not? Technology. In the chapter of this utopian, I say that if, for example, it's not going to be a solar panel. The revolution in energy might be fusion. If you're going to have fusion really successful fast enough before we get to three degrees, then the energy costs very little. The greenhouse emissions are zero. Economic growth boosts. You can produce so much more food because water becomes cheap and you can desalinate it. You have huge economic growth. Of course, there'll be inequality because technology innovation benefits capital and the high-skill workers. Everybody has to lose their job with AI automation. But then at least we can have universal basic income and we can redistribute to have a future that is more sustainable, more environmentally friendly without conflicts among countries and so on. But technology has to be the solution. Technology. I can't believe it. A technology is the answer. All right. Last question. You're advised to Biden right now about China or inflation. Pick one and keep it short. No, real. On China, I think we have the right policy. There is a strategic competition. I think the key is going to be when China makes a move on Taiwan, what we're going to do? Just give the weapons to Taiwan or we're going to really defend Taiwan. We have war with China and that war from conventional becomes unconventional. So do we want to go to World War III and nuclear radiation to essentially defend Taiwan? I don't know that even Biden has the answer to that question. I think that's a key question and there's not a clear answer to it. All right. I have one more quick question. If you're the average person, where do you put

your money, Norel?

My suggestion will be right now you lose money on equities. You lose money on long term bonds and you lose money on cash because of inflation. If you want to protect yourself, your portfolio, the investment should be short-term treasuries, the replies, tips that are inflation index, the replies, gold, precious metals, and some commodities are going to go up in value when there is inflation. And if there is moderate inflation, some forms of real estate are going to be the right investment because they protect you against inflation. But a good third of all real estate stock in the US is going to be stranded because of climate change, flooding, hurricanes, sea rise levels, wildfires, droughts, and you name it. Half of the US is going to have to move somewhere else midwest into Canada next 20, 30 years and therefore even your real estate investment should be done in light of the coming

environmental disaster.