We

heard lance say in that last clip that some components of the rule could prove confusing to interpret. He use the term murky. Lance also cited some potential concerns with the agencies focus on greenhouse gas omissions. In fact, the greenhouse gas omissions component of the fun disclosure rule came up in all f my interviews for this episode. For example, here's what anicutt shaw of jeffreys had to say. There

is a general misunderstanding in the world, i would say, about decarbonizing one's portfolio versus de carbonizing the world. And thote of us in the industry, in capital markets should, i think, understand the tube. But to be honest, i come across many well intentioned people who don't understand that distinction. If you don't have a high fossil fuel exposed portfolio, it means very little terms of whether the world is emitting a lot of fossil fuels, because you can simply divest your assets, your hydrocarbon stocks and bonds, to somebody else. Or the companies in your portfolio, which might be hydrocarbon intensive, might actuallya just divest their underlying assets to private equity or to other private, non publicly traded stock. So people who have low carbon portfolios are not necessarily driving for a low carbon world. It means they just don't exposure to high carbon companies. Our general take is that the push for portfolio level carbon intensity measurement might actually further confuse folcus, or it might lead to significant vestment and divestment is all well and good. It has its it has its role, but it won't lead to the decarbonization that you might think the world is heading towards. And it also won't, or you will have periods of significant under perform when when fossil fuel assets go up, like we're currently living through right now, you

kind of hit at thisand i think would be worth exploring a tiny bit more, which is, how will this potential impact the divest versus engage debate?